5% of game problems are a problem with the rules

The games I have been in that never completed have died because:
>The GM and one of the players had a really nasty falling out unrelated to the game and it made things too akward to continue
>The campaign had been going on for over a year and people were still enjoying it, I was running out of ideas and ended up doing a really poorly-thought-out story arc that diddn't fit the party at all and killed everyone's interest in the game in a matter of weeks (this was the fist game I ever ran and a huge learning experience)
>The GM got tired of dealing with one of the players being a constant powergaming rules lawyer and becoming a passive agressive shit whenever he diddn't get his way.
>It was a system I never wanted to run anyway and I hated every second of dealing with it's actual rules. At least we got a few fun sessions out of it.
>The GM forced an obnoxious as fuck railroady DMPC on us, and disallowed anything he diddn't like mechanically. It kept going for a few sessions because he managed to have a good opening hook, but that wore off quick.
>The campaign I was running was ambitious as fuck and the story was very deeply tied into the backstories of the PCs. Half the PCs dropped with no warning after a couple months and me horridly trying to fix things ended up making the plot into a mangled mess which I eventually euthanized.
>The GM got a new work schedule which made it impossible for him to keep running.

>AM
Rage is in the middle of a 36-hour power nap

>Do you have a point, or is this just another thinly veiled attempt at excusing bad game design?
OP just likes to post his drawings. The text is extraneous.

But why bother with the false dichotomy? The two aren't related.

I play RPG's with people I trust and get along with because it's a social experience I enjoy best that way. And I choose good, functional systems to play with them because many, many RPG systems are badly designed and not fit for purpose.

Jokes on you, people I like don't play class-based systems.

>45% are errors in communication/mixed expectations.
When discussing 4e this climbs to the likes of 80%.

>But why bother with the false dichotomy? The two aren't related.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. They're related in the sense that people have problems with games, and those are sources of those problems. However, the question of rule set is almost always of negligible importance except in extreme circumstances (like the commonly quoted "we tried playing FATAL").

People complain about games, and many people are quick to blame the system, often in its entirety, as if changing systems will alleviate all the issues instead of introducing new ones.Ultimately, most problems can be solved with adherence to basic rules of proper communication and common decency and consideration, the building blocks of any good group.

Even in your games you play with people you trust, you can greatly improve your games by focusing on improving the communication between your group, and concern yourself with rule sets as an amusing distraction rather than a concern of vital importance.

So you're expending a lot of words to say 'Good game design doesn't matter', got it.

I strongly disagree, because good game design can actively help avoid the sort of miscommunication and ambiguities you're discussing, along with providing less points in general for people to disagree on or generate dissonance within the group. A good, well designed game is better than a sloppy, badly designed game.

>I'd say those fall under errors in communication.

I wouldn't. I've again, had several games where the entire party huddles together and agrees that some amazingly dumb idea is actually great, and I have to juggle how much of a warning, or even soft railroading, is necessary to prevent them from attacking the guy who they know is way more powerful than they are, or to tell a grieving king that his son didn't die heroically and was in fact shitting himself in fear, or that leaving their goods in an inn which they know is shady and has had thefts occur is a bad idea.

What a shitty meme comic

25% players being shitheads
25% GM being shithead
50% both

>implying Cestree isn't that equally as disturbing type of GM who lives and breathes for her game

As usual both extremes are dangerous.

Does "Rules" include handbook advice and official guides? Because if so, 75% of problems are the fault of the "rules".

Shitty game rules creates bad behavior and miscommunication

>36
>Not the full 48
Fucking casuals.

>A good, well designed game is better than a sloppy, badly designed game.

True. That's not even debatable, considering the language used is basically circular ("a better game is better than a worse game").

But, most games discussed on this board fall into the "well designed" category, and chopping that category up into further tiers is largely just a matter of taste. It's not like people are lining up to play that 500 page mangled D&D heartbreaker set in his insane micro-economics universe that was posted here a few times some months ago. They're playing published games with plenty of play testing and hundreds of people adding addendums and alternate ways to play with the systems to improve them (or, more accurately, to have the game suit their personal tastes).

Even games I personally don't like have communities here that help players avoid common pitfalls and to help people use the system for the games they want to play. It's a game with rules I don't love, but I can understand what types of games they're geared towards and what I might need to change in order to use the system to play a game more to my own tastes. It's kind of why almost every rule set includes a little blurb about how the rules are not set in stone.

>good game design can actively help avoid the sort of miscommunication

But, good communication can actively avoid any issues or faults a game might have. Often to the point where a good group can make a "bad" game great. That tends to be the case with simple or silly games (like those single page one-shots), which inherently are riddled with issues but those issues dissolve with a group that can communicate well.

No matter how well a system might be written, a group still needs to learn how to agree on different matters that exist well beyond any system, including the concept of what system to use in the first place.

I am not stupid enough to argue that system never matters. It just doesn't matter in the majority of cases.

>showing up on time is EXTREME

No, this is extreme.

5% is the fault of the rules
40% is using the wrong system for the game you are running
30% is a lack of GM leadership
20% is a lack of cohesion/communication - including flaking
5% is that guy

>10
>20
>15
>5
>50
ftfy

It's called parody.

On time, good.

Getting to the host's house 5 hours early, bad.

>always dedicated to supporting the party
>that blush
That's a healslut if I ever saw one!

Nice hypothesis. What is your data basis?

I don't think that's what he meant. It's the kind of GM that works on his shit 24/7, treats it as SRS BSNS and any criticism about the game is seen as personal attack because he's so invested. Such a person is usually on disability checks or otherwise unemployed. I know that's the experience with one guy. Yes Marc, it's you.

>poor roleplaying skill is not a factor
ok

>wrong system
>40%

Tell me, what's the real source of your frustrations?

In my experience, the easiest way to spot a failure of a campaign is when try try to stretch a general system to a genre it isn't prepared for - the most obvious example is d20 OGL and Pathfinder. It's also been an issue I have had with 40K games and when I tried GURPs because it just had so many supplements.

The next would be using a genre system poorly; using Apocalypse World for The Road, using CoC for gothic horror, using Pathfinder without magic. All terrible.

That's literally covered by 25% of what I said, and arguably part of choosing the right system.

But thanks for making it easy to spot the "muh superior roleplay" that guy. I bet you play text only.

>a failure to follow basic etiquette

I think a large part of this falls on the RP community for failing to teach people roleplaying norms and etiquette, while inadvertently glorifying disruptive behavior for humor purposes.

Wrong system is literally most of the problems people have on this board. Pic related.

>Still pushing that dumb meme

Oh, I get it, you're just a dumb faggot being a dumb faggot.
Do carry on, but at least do it with a trip.

The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.

Few problems discussed on this board can be solved just by switching systems, largely because at the end of the day, the system is actually only a small component to the game that's being run, and that switching systems just leads to a new veneer on the same old problems.

"Try X system" is not always bad advice, but it's not particularly helpful in a thread about problem players, or about story issues, or even alignment arguments, because even in the last case it's just a name (or a different name) for things you'll find in find in almost every other game. Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct, and most alignment arguments typically revolve around these two features of alignment.

Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system, and the idea that you should abandon a system just because something didn't work out is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.

Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature. Play X game or play Y game is a tactic to try to garner support for one game or dissuade people from playing another, and is largely dishonest in its lack of transparency. D&D becomes a target not because it's a bad game by any measure, but because it's popularity means people are less inclined to play other games.

As a person who has played his share of everything under the sun and now plays homebrews almost exclusively, I've really gotten tired of people claiming system superiority or inferiority when they're all just talking about the same inferior games just under different disguises.

If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.

>being this mad
At least I have a point. D&D is 75+% of the games on roll20, do you think every single one of those should be using D&D for their campaign?

This is a long road to argue against the straw man.

Saying "don't force D&D into a campaign it isn't suited for" is a lot different than "all your problems are the D&D rules." I literally listed the rules as 5%.

>At least I have a point.

Not really.

>D&D is 75+% of the games on roll20, do you think every single one of those should be using D&D for their campaign?

Damn, you really sound upset by that.

Yes. It's a pretty versatile system as is and can do far more then you're willing to give it credit for, but I wouldn't be surprised if the overwhelming majority of those games were literally just pseudo-medieval fantasy adventure campaigns.

But seriously, trip so I can filter you, since it sounds like you're just going to repeat the same old memes you've been forcing for the last few years.

>all pseudo-medieval fantasy adventure stories are the same
You are just proving my point.

>Saying "don't force D&D into a campaign it isn't suited for" is a lot different than "all your problems are the D&D rules."

Do you honestly think there's people "forcing" D&D? Like, putting gun's against their heads?

D&D is at its core a simple system with a lot of parts that can be used for a wide variety of games. There really isn't any such thing as a campaign it isn't suited for, just campaigns that might require more effort on the DM's part.

But, with even basic system mastery, a GM can easily run any kind of game using any of the D&D editions, or really any system they feel like using, since games are largely fluid and designed so that people can choose and mix elements at their own discretion. Arguing systems at this point has devolved to something akin to /v/'s arguing of consoles, except slightly more pathetic because of the further degree of disparity between our personal experiences.

There's no reason to try and pretend that a person complaining about a particular rule is a fault of the entire system, and a simple alternative or ramification is always more helpful than trying to sell someone a game they're not interested in while pretending that game will solve all their aches and pains.

You can even offer ideas from those games as alternatives, but there's no reason to act like a snake oil salesman.

That could just be PM. Rage could easily just be a lazy git

You're retarded. I said a GM forces D&D into a story it doesn't do well in, not D&D is forced by a vague entity onto the GM.

I am saying the GM is why a game dies, and facilitating their story with the rules is a huge portion of what a GM does. You even say that it is more work on the one person required for a game to run to use D&D in a campaign it isn't suited for, but it is not a factor in the campaign dissolving.

Stop arguing that I am blaming the rules, because I am not. I was always blaming the GM for using the wrong rules.

user, here's a little secret
I'm just memeing on you
youtube.com/watch?v=VDvr08sCPOc

youtube.com/watch?v=cG0YF3_Sc8U

>There really isn't any such thing as a campaign it isn't suited for,
>just campaigns that might require more effort on the DM's part.
So... there are some campaigns it is not suited for, then? There comes a point when the effort required by the DM forcing a square peg into a round hole is less than the effort required to just learn a new system.

>Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system
LOL, no.

>is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.
LOL, people who only play D&D are like people who only watch Fantasy movies and never ever anything outside that particular genre.

>Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature.
That is a factor but to attribute most of it to this motivation is disingenious and it is furthermore testimony to a fundamental lack of understanding of RPG design. Every system has strengths and weaknesses; as a result every game is designed towards a certain playstyle. It's inevitable

The game I am personally designing is geared towards a different playstyle than D&D and if I tried to run Hack&Slash fantasy in it, it would be terrible. I would have to extensive houserule it to make it workable and EVEN THEN it would still not be as good as D&D for that given playstyle.

Another example: if you tried to run medieval Lovecraftian horror under D&D, you would have to extensive houserule it and the result would still not as good CoC Dark Ages. By the time you'd be make it nearly as good as CoC, your houseruled D&D would resemble D&D so much that one would have to ask if it wouldn't have been better to learn CoC to begin with. Certainly for your players knowledge of D&D would not be a significant advantage. Character classes would work completely differently, etc.

>If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.
For which playstyle?

I wish nogamez were not allowed to post.

>I said a GM forces D&D into a story it doesn't do well in,

And I'm saying such a thing doesn't really exist.

>You even say that it is more work on the one person required for a game to run to use D&D in a campaign it isn't suited for

No, I'm saying it may require more work to perform more changes to alter it from its largely hypothetical "default" state. Almost every GM alters any system they use, often accidentally, and even two GM's trying to use the same system will invariably end up producing very different games simply through what features of the system they pay more attention to.

No where did I say it was more effort to use D&D in a "campaign it isn't suited for". It just requires more "effort" in the sense that the DM will read and select (and possibly even design) different variants, which is ultimately not much different from picking up a different system.

>I am saying the GM is why a game dies, and facilitating their story with the rules is a huge portion of what a GM does.

Handling the rules is important, but that ultimately comes down to a question of communication, not "using the wrong rules." When all is said and done, "right" and "wrong" rules are incredibly subjective, and being able to communicate your intentions and understanding how to adapt a system to them is far, far more important than adhering to any set of rules, because invariably, regardless of what system it might be, there will be a disagreement between them and the GM.

It's bizarre to obsess about game systems like you do, like you can ignore underlying issues or pass the blame from them onto franchises you dislike. D&D, along with just about every popular system, is versatile enough to be used as the backbone for any kind of story, and to insist that there's limitations to what a system can do while thousands of people disprove you every day is just ignoring the actual root of the problem, which is just poor communication.

>included a desert fork
>only two (unlabeled) plates in the main plate area: Despite having a salad fork and a soup spoon, there's only a plate for one of those things
>no steak knife
Who designed this thing?

Spoken like a man who has never tried not playing D&D.

I want to hug Cestree.

Nigga, this is your third massive strawman about this. As soon as you have homebrewed changes to the game you are outside my 40% figure and into 5% figure of the rules being a problem.

> Every system has strengths and weaknesses;

It's almost as if every game also includes variants to expand what kind of playstyles it's suited for, with each system actually being a virtually infinite amount of systems thanks to common recommendation for the GM to adjust the game to suit their needs (alongside those printed variants I just mentioned).

> you would have to extensive houserule it and the result would still not as good CoC Dark Ages

Why not? For some groups, in many ways, it would be far superior, let alone "as good."

>By the time you'd be make it nearly as good as CoC

Perhaps there are features people prefer in D&D over CoC, and by the time they finished housruling CoC it wouldn't resemble CoC so much as it would D&D?

Has that possibility even entered your mind? It doesn't sound like it has, which makes it hard to speak to someone like you. You're convinced that your tastes are superior and correct, and that anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally wrong, which is altogether ridiculous in a discussion that revolves around subjective tastes and personal experiences.

You can't always just argue from a singular point of view and demand people to treat your opinions as facts. A group could, and has every right to, completely disagree with your assertions, and prefer even raw, vanilla D&D for Lovecraftian horror over CoC:DA for a thousand reasons, ranging from a preference of one magic system over the other, to simply preferring a degree of greater player capacity and the agency that comes with it. Yes, more-limited characters tend to suit horror better (which is what often makes Silent Hill scarier than Resident Evil), but some groups don't really want it to be as scary as you might like it to be.

To each their own.

>As soon as you have homebrewed changes to the game

That's why I want you to reread this.
>Almost every GM alters any system they use, often accidentally, and even two GM's trying to use the same system will invariably end up producing very different games simply through what features of the system they pay more attention to.

Your 40% number is ludicrous if you assume that such a high proportion don't homebrew changes to the game.

Also,
is just copypasta as a general reply to this meme.

Holy shit READ!

Christ, I am understanding why "communication" is such an issue for you.

I think the issue is two seperate issues, but you're mixing them when it suits you and seperating them when it works against you.

>you will never bully Ribbon by mocking her characters

I have been entirely consistent, and said you were pushing the wrong issue the entire time - and yet you continue to push the wrong fucking issue because I posted a meme poking fun at the stereotype for GMs forcing a game to meet a story (and poorly).

The only game I am DMing right now is a D&D game because it is the right tool for the job. When I GMed a sword &a sorcery story in the jungles of a custom setting heavily influenced by spirits and cults I used RuneQuest 6. When we played Star Wars with a heavy emphasis on the working stuff Jedi I used the RQ6 Star Wars book, and we switched over to the FFG game - and I then tracked down the google hangout extension to use the dice in roll20. I've GMed Pathfinder and Dungeon World and Apocalypse World and OSR games - every single one was structured differently to meet those systems. I've homebrewed most of them to one degree or another, and I adjust games based on the player's opinions - even entirely scrapping my story in order to build one we would all enjoy.

And guess what? None of my games fall apart even with new players to the group. Because the GM needs to use the rules that fit his story.

More like 5:75:20

I lied. One game fell apart because a player died and we chose to change games.

>When I GMed

And that's how you GM. That's the way that suits YOU.
Do I really need to remind you of that? Capitals and all?

More importantly, you've just listed a bunch of systems and games you've run, and then said those games didn't fall apart as if you switching systems had any importance in all that. There's leaps of logic at play, and overall you are giving undo credit to the importance of system.

>I adjust games based on the player's opinions - even entirely scrapping my story in order to build one we would all enjoy.

This is why your games kept together, and hardly because you've largely used sub-optimal systems for every game you've so far listed while pretending you've used the best.

Listening to players manifests itself in a number of ways, and for you it seems you interpret that as constantly keeping the rotation of systems, partly to match the story, but mostly (considering the variety at play) just to keep things fresh and to prevent excessive familiarity, which is fine and respectable, very similar to Musashi Miyamoto's caution against over-familiarity with a particular weapon. But, just like Musashi constantly harps about there being only ONE TRUE PATH, you're failing to recognize that different people and groups have different cares and considerations.

Bad GMs are bad GMs, regardless of what system they're running. Worrying about what rules you use shouldn't be entirely dismissed, but it's such a distant concern compared to just listening and understanding your players that it's just about almost never worth mentioning, and hardly should be the go-to answer when someone has a complaint, and certainly not the underlying problem in 40% of games like you insist it is.

>Why not? For some groups, in many ways, it would be far superior, let alone "as good."
If you want cosmic horror, your PCs cannot be demigods. Which means anything beyond Level X in D&D goes out the window. Which means you need slower level progression. Vancian magic goes out the window. In fact, the D&D character classes are already build on a standard fantasy hero premise but lovecraftian horror is more about commoners facing the terrors from beyond. You cannot have HP bloat either. You will need to add insanity rules. Etc etc etc.

If you want to make it a good cosmic horror game, the resulting system will only bear fainting resemblance to D&D. And more to CoC. You may have the same underlying structure: the 6 attributes and skills that operate as d20+skill value versus DN, you may have a BAB. But you will not have much more in common with D&D than this basic structure. And just to retain this basic structure you have had to come up with a ton of houserules that are not nearly as tried and tested as the 40 year old CoC ruleset. If you like system tinkering, do it. Otherwise, just buy CoC and add choice elements of D&D that are cosmic horror-compatible.

>Perhaps there are features people prefer in D&D over CoC, and by the time they finished housruling CoC it wouldn't resemble CoC so much as it would D&D?
Yes, of course. If you only know CoC Dark Ages but want to play top-notch hack&slash fantasy, you will have introduce more HPs into CoC as the first step. Then characters will need to be given special abilities, etc etc. In the end all you will retain is the basic structure of CoC: set of attributes, d100 skills, etc.

You may consider Runequest a professional (instead of merely houseruled, which means less tested) fantasy variant of CoC. And still it's not nearly as good as D&D for hack&slash, pillage&plunder, levelup&loot fantasy.

For fuck's sake it's not the rules it's the application of the rules. You are the one changing the argument of 40% is using the wrong rules for the story into 40% are using bad rules - when I already listed the rules in vacuum being a problem 5% of the time.

Here's a super, duper dumbed down version for you since you continue to not understand:
>5%* of games fall apart because the rules of the game are bad
>70%* of games fall apart because the GM
>25%* of games fall apart because the group or the players
*These are approximations using very round numbers because they are easy to tally. I could say 3.75% of games fall apart because of the rules but it would trigger you.

Of that 70% caused by the GM:
>40% is because he's using the wrong style rules for he story he is telling
>30% is his management of the group

Of the 25%
>20% is because of the group as a whole having issues
>5% is because of a single player causing issues

Where does it imply that she is arriving five hours early?

ITT: People make up magical numbers that mean absolutely nothing.

>If you want cosmic horror, your PCs cannot be demigods.

Why not? There's always bigger fish and all that.

I'm not disagreeing that certain concepts, like high mortality, don't work better for some games rather than others, but I feel like you're forgetting that even with 1,000 hp, you still die from an attack that deals 1,000 damage. In fact, there's a D&D book dedicated to running cosmic horror games called Elder Evils or something.

As a side note, I've always disliked CoC's insanity rules, aside from the sense that they're good for jokes.

Hey, Veeky Forums.
95% of your "problems" I have zero experience with, and I suspect they are imaginary.
The other 5% are literally impossible to occur.

That's a soup bowl on top of the bread plate.

Which is still WTF, as bread and soup are often served together.

>tries not playing D&D
>character dies three times before the game even starts

Sorry, no.

Try also not playing Traveler.

Is there anything that isn't gurps that I should try to play?

What do you like to play generally?

I don't know, why do you like RPGs? What do you want out of a game?

>Why not? There's always bigger fish and all that.
Okay, I was imprecise: you cannot have good cosmic horror and players repeatedly, doing "cool stuff", being all badass and shit. It detracts from the sense of helplessness and dread if it's a repeat occurence. You can of course create a mixture of D&D demi-gods and bigger fish. In that case, your system variant will be a D&D/CoC-hybrid in the end.

>As a side note, I've always disliked CoC's insanity rules, aside from the sense that they're good for jokes.
LOL, they are a precise simulation of human psychology compared to Palladium's insanity rules though.

Traveller. It's good for classic sci-fi and character generation is actually a fun mini-game.

I like to world build, and in fact I hate being a player.

World building isn't related to the system, or to the play experience at all, really. It's what you do when you're not playing the game.

Often enough, it can help to manage that.
If the players can't manage anything at all, then just type up the story for them to read later; if what they can manage just isn't in the same league as some of the things they're up against, then they're still involved and have to decide what they're going to do about that.
Put another way, the players may well be able to do something about (at least some of) the cultists, even if what they summon might only allow them to decide how they want to evacuate.

Then, I am not sure why I like RPGs. Just feels right. Feels like something I was meant to do.

I can't tell you the right game for you, but I can give a broad net of recommendations.

FATE would be good to try as the biggest narrativist system.
For a more simulationist game, you might try Song of Swords, which isn't officially released yet but is freely available in the general thread.
Ars Magica would be a good game to try out large scope stuff and Unknown Armies will help with smaller stuff. They're both fairly grim/realistic, if you wanted to go higher-flying you could try out Dungeons the Dragoning, if you can find a game, or Exalted. Also consider something rules-lite; Risus would be a good general system there, but you might be better served looking at small systems built to meet a specific purpose. Magical Burst is a good choice there.

That doesn't tell me a lot system-wise, but I'll reiterate Magical Burst as an example of how setting conceits can be built into the system. For old fashioned stuff, Runequest has a lot of cool setting details to look at, and also intertwines the system and setting to a fair degree. Again you might check out the Song of Swords thread and observe that the same system, with only a couple modifications, does medieval fantasy and modern/WWII combat in space, plus like three magic systems and counting. You could also look into the narrativist stuff; something like FATE provides a good way to moderate the tone and bring out cool setting details, while something like Dungeon World lets you go even further into it by making the system fundamentally revolve around whatever paradigms you want it to. Though Dungeon World is too heavy-handed in doing so for many players, and the design is sometimes considered to be up it's own ass.

You're going to have to learn to self-analyze a lot better than that if you want good recommendations. Either that or just play fucking everything, and see what feels best.

>Peasants think this shit is complicated
It's usually arranged in an order according to the courses of the meal. Generally speaking you start on the outside and end on the inside. Hence the soup spoon and the salad fork being on the outside: soups and salads are entrée's.

That's one of the simpler set ups.

I've eaten dinners with seven forks and even more spoons.

It was at the point where no one had a clue and just went with what felt right.

>that twist top
jesus

I actually prefer the pajamas/sweater. It's cute.

>running to session
>has no backpack or anything with dnd paraphernalia in it

Below-average DMing.

I think my DM forgot his dice once, and sometimes has trouble with his computer, but I don't think he's ever showed up with absolutely nothing.

ah yes, DnD, the best game for playing Game of Thrones. I'm sure to use these classes like wizard, cleric and bard, just as they appear in the corebook. These spells? Just as they appear.

And let me use these in-depth DnD rules for political and social manipulation. How could I go wrong?

I'd better use the DnD core rules for loyalty, fealty and betrayal, too.

The level system? Sure, that makes perfect sense for this diverse group of characters, some of whom are literally children, some of whom are experienced warriors.

These books of monsters and traps will also do very well in my GoT inspired game. Just what I need.

USE THE RIGHT FUCKING SYSTEM FOR THE RIGHT FUCKING GAME

I wanna fuck Cestree

>needs rules for politics
>needs more than four classes to represent the entirety of the GoT cast
>thinks you always need to use the entirety of a system

It sounds like you're asking for a lot of superfluous rules for a game best kept simple.

Especially because the actual Game of Thrones game has terrible rules for politics and social manuevering.

>thinking there's any four classes that do a good job of GoT characters
Honestly, I'd use Song of Swords.

What do you think those bags on her chest are for?

Parodies are meant to be funny.

Fighter for the sixteen guys and one girl who can fight.
Rogue/Thief for just about everyone else. Maybe also include the aristocrat and thief NPC classes if you feel weird with everyone having backstab, but it seems like that would be fitting for the series.

Druid for Bran. Cleric for Melisandre.

Am I missing anyone?

You could not be a worse human being.

you need to respeck her culcher, user