Song of ice and fire

[TerraDave]

Surprised to not see any threads on this, or maybe I missed them...but the quick start rules are here:

http://grfiles.game-host.org/gr_files/SiF_Fastplay.pdf

And, they are different...

Thoughts?




(Note: I don't actually know much about the books, except they are supposed to be really good...)

 

[Agamon]

I think you did miss them. Unless by different, you mean they're different than the quick play rules they released for Free RPG Day?

 

[Remus Lupin]

Downloaded these. Haven't had a chance to play yet. Maybe one day ...

 

[Iron Sky]

I thought about getting them before since ASoIaF is my favorite fantasy series period... but just because they're great books doesn't mean that they're compatible with my roleplaying group.

I sat down and skimmed the RPG book in Hastings one day and the rules look like they'd portray the setting pretty well, but never bought it since I don't think we'd ever actually play it.

If you haven't read the books though, read them, if nothing else than for ideas on how to run political/noble intrigue in your games.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I sat down and skimmed the RPG book in Hastings one day

Neat trick. It's not out yet.

I take it you are probably referring to 'A Game of Thrones', the RPG book produced by Guardians of Order (who are no longer extant) a few years ago.

Different thing.

Or I suppose you could have skimmed the quick start rules. If so, never mind. Just drawing conclusions for fun if not profit.

As for the rules, I think they look promising. It's a break from what's come before, certanily. And this is a good thing. It'll play fast, I imagine.

 

[Iron Sky]

Poor assumption on my part. I assumed that he was talking about the old one - wasn't even aware there was a new one.

I opened the link he gave me in another tab, but then had to go before I looked at it.

Conclusion accurately drawn Aus

 

[TerraDave]

Ya, from different I meant "not d20" (or WHFRP?).

Is the system close to anything else out there? The "additive dice pool" is not one I know...but I don't know all d6/dice pool games.

 

[Stalker0]

After my initial read

Things I like:

1) The way bonus die works, and how specializations increase your consistency, but not your raw power.

2) The way players get to choose how they take injuries, and even how they yield.

3) That the victor gets to choose how you are defeated, leading to very cinematic opportunities.

4) The social combat system seems decently solid.

My dislikes.

1) Endurance seems way way too important in your overally survival. I can't say players going less than a 3 ever.

2) I'm not sure if the heavy armors DR is worth the huge penalty to your defenses.

3) The table for determines magnitudes of success aren't that intuitive.


Overall it seems pretty solid, I would love to give it a try sometime.

 

[Derro]

After my initial read

Things I like:

I agree.

My dislikes.

1) Endurance seems way way too important in your overally survival. I can't say players going less than a 3 ever.

You're probably right but seeing as the default is 2 I don't see it being too much of an issue. Since the setting will be more condusive to socially based characters physical hardiness may not be as much of gem as in your usual adventuring type games. Of the six sample characters presented two have Endurance ratings of two. Both of them are definitely non-combatants, a septa and a magister.

2) I'm not sure if the heavy armors DR is worth the huge penalty to your defenses.

I've seen considerable debate over this and I'm still not convinced either way. I think that the numbers are probably pretty sound. If you look at the damage rating of weapons vs. the protection value of armors heavy armor is still fairly attractive. If anything this can be viewed as rules working toward the conventions of the setting. It is implausible to be wearing the heavier armors unless you are expecting a fight. I imagine this is in place to prevent the D&Disms of every other warrior type being fully decked out whatever the situation. If worse comes to worse, and the numbers are too high, the scale is short enough that you could knock a point off and still maintain a relative balance amongst the armors.

3) The table for determines magnitudes of success aren't that intuitive.

True. But like so many rules it becomes a matter of played familiarity after a while. Roll the dice enough and you start to get a feel for the results.

All in all I have high hopes for this game. At the very least it looks to be a good system for playing heavily political games of court intrigue and land grabbing. I think if I pick it up, and I probably will, Westeros will not be my setting of choice. As much as I've loved the books I can't imagine playing in that setting. There is so much canon and implications that it would just get really messy. Most of the people I game with have read the series and I can't even envision one game that wouldn't devolve into a debate over something in the novels.

And why not even a hint of a magic system in the quick-start? Not even a hint. I know it's a super low magic setting but, c'mon, just a taster would have been nice.

 

[Aus_Snow]

And why not even a hint of a magic system in the quick-start? Not even a hint. I know it's a super low magic setting but, c'mon, just a taster would have been nice.

Yeah, in a way.

Still, there's a design journal entry, here, which provides some insight.