Game of Thrones characters

I was having a discussion with my players about how 4e and 5e seem to be a bit too much about maximising the stat bonus and we started to wonder how viable it would be to build the characters from Game of Thrones tv series.

Now admittedly, in a low magic campaign it won't be possible to build magical pcs but we have a lot of fighters and rogues (and non-magical rangers) and very few of them follow the style encouraged by the stat system of maximising your main stat.

I wondered what people's views on character builds were (class (and build), level, stats,and alignment) and whether they would be viable characters in DDN.  If not, what changes could they make to DDN to make the characters more viable?

 PS Avoid spoilers please!
DDN  is the best edition for GoT that any other other version of D&D as skills and HD are seperate.  In other editions, you tend to need 30+ HP to be competent at advanced skill checks.

It's certainly a plus in that skills are divorced from character classes and the inclusion of Backgrounds. You pretty much can't recreate any of the principle heroic characters with a Fighter, as they usually only have access to skills like Climb, Intimidate, and Swim. None of the Knowledge or Diplomacy skills you'd see among those characters, nor enough Skill Points or whatever to purchase them all. So at least 5E changes that as now any class can take any set of skills, and a Fighter can just as easily be a street brawler or an aristocrat.

You can get Diplomacy as cross-class skill with a Fighter. There aren't many warrior-types in the story that are great diplomats. Ned Stark is a straight-faced guy with little subtlety for dealing with others, Robert Baratheon couldn't care less, nor Jamie, The Hound, Bron and The Mountain much less, and there are many other knights and men-at-arms in general which just don't show any diplomacy skills and/or have some, enough to know how to behave in court and amongst the nobility but nothing much beyond that. Those could pretty much be considered as having some points in Diplomacy as cross-class and an above-average or higher charisma to help. Guys Jamie, Robert Baratheon and the Knight of Roses are shown to be quite charismatic people, but don't necessarily show great diplomacy skills.

The only warrior-type that comes to mind as having really remarkable skill in diplomacy is Ser Jorah. There are probably others, but not that many. Most of the court-intrigue and diplomacy characters are non-warriors like Littlefinger, Varis and Tyrion, and most of the noble warriors like Tywin Lannister and Stannis Baratheon or Ned Stark are respected and feared more for their nobility status than diplomacy skills.

Not saying 3e skill system is the best to handle a ASOIAF based campaign, but it's possible to reach an approximation at the very least.

And again... I'm basing all that in the books. The series may portray some of them in a different manner perhaps.
I'm not sure if this is official, but I found Tyrion's levels and classes.

gameofthrones.net/world-of-westeros/47-p...

It's not official. Those're fanmade stats for a Persistent World using Neverwinter Nights 2.

You can get Diplomacy as cross-class skill with a Fighter. There aren't many warrior-types in the story that are great diplomats.

You're missing the point. There're a lot of skills which would be common to nobles and aristocrats. Except for Ride and maybe Intimidate, all of those skills are cross-class skills (Knowledge skills being a big one. Most Westerosi nobility would have Knowledge [Nobility] to be able to identify the heraldry of other houses and knights). Add in the limited number of skill points, and it's near impossible to create a standard Westerosi knight with the Fighter class.
As others have pointed out, it's a very low-level setting, so he wouldn't need a whole lot of levels. If it were up to me, I'd start him from a base of Level 1 Aristocrat/Level 1 Expert, given how well read and knowledgeable he is. Let's see...

TYRION LANNISTER
Aristocrat 1/Expert 1

STR
7, DEX 12, CON 11, INT 14, WIS 12, CHA 13

HP:
14, AC: 12 (10 + 1 Dex +1 Small), SPEED: 20 feet
BAB: +0, FORT: +0, REF: +1, WILL: +5

Skills:
Bluff +8, Diplomacy +6, Knowledge (Geography) +5, Knowledge (History) +7, Knowledge (Local) +5, Knowledge (Nobility) +7, Knowledge (Religion) +5, Perception +8, Ride +4, Sense Motive +8
Feats: Alertness, Deceitful

That's a start, though I don't think he'd need much more.



That's a cool version, although I think you might be doing him a disservice with his mental stats though.  Rather than ascribe them in isolation, I think you need to look at them in comparison to the other characters.  Compared to the characters overall, Tyrion is up there with the smartest characters in the franchise.  He spots double entendres very quickly, he's incredibly witty, verbose, and charming, and has a strong will power and sense of self (apart from his hedonism, which seems as much about punishing his father for being disappointed in him as anything else).  He designs a harness for the disabled Brann. 

I think his low skills (due to level) is where DDN with its backgrounds works better than 3e.  You can offset his low level with higher mental stats quite effectively but the Rake scheme (sneak attack aside) with its advantage on charisma checks is a great way to simulate his charm and skill.  The new interaction rules also work brilliantly - those npcs with a beef against his house, or who disapprove of his reputation start off as hostile and so a successful check gets him less than he otherwise would and he still manages to win some of them over.  Wisdom is the hardest to get a grip on but I think once you move past his apparent disdain and love of flouting social convention, he's nowhere near as foolish as he makes out.  I think you could add 2 to each of his mental stats and be closer to a decent represention.

BTW - I was basing my stats on DDN's notion that level 3 is a fully trained character (equal to level 1 in older versions).  So anyone who is level 1 - 2 is a novice in traning.

I think you also have to remember that the attack bonus has to be looked at in the round.  Let's be honest and say that if D&D were realistic, halflings would be awful, just awful, in a fight and their strength would be half what it is in the game.  Also the average farm hand might have 13 or 14 strength from all the physical work they do, this increases their attack roll.  3e decision to say that the average person has 10-11 in all their stats is misleading.  Very few people should have a stat spread like that and many untrained people will still have +1 to+2 to attack rolls.

But overall, I like your version - it just not DDN!
Well, no, it's not DDN because DDN can't model a game world where the primary movers and shakers in that world aren't adventurers. Maybe someday it will. Hopefully it'll get around to introducing NPC classes, but at the moment all that we have are PC classes, none of which suit Tyrion.

As for his mental stats, there's a tendency for people to ascribe crazy high stats to characters because of their own innate desire to make their characters with the best stats possible. What some forget is that some of the stats are tied to realworld attributes, INT and STR among them. INT is tied to IQ. Just multiply the number by 10 and you get the IQ level, and someone with an IQ of 120-144 (INT 12-14) is high above average. A 15 or higher would mark him as a genius and although Tyrion's definitely highly intelligent, educated, and well-read, he's certainly not in genius territory. By way of comparison, Stephen Hawking has an IQ of 160. In D&D terms he'd have INT 16. Tyrion is definitely no Stephen Hawking.

As for WIS, he's wiser than the average person, but again, stat inflation. He's not so wise that he was able to spot all the people who would end up betraying him later on (And given that you haven't read the novels, I don't want to spoil you). Point is, an above average WIS suits him, but not one which is much higher. And charismatic as he is to us, he's pretty well reviled by most people in the series. His charisma isn't high enough that he doesn't have to pay for women, for instance.

3e decision to say that the average person has 10-11 in all their stats is misleading.

It's actually quite accurate, as I pointed out above with the INT example.

Very few people should have a stat spread like that and many untrained people will still have +1 to+2 to attack rolls.

Maybe so in 3E, but given just how small the attack bonuses are in DDN and Bounded Accuracy, then he certainly wouldn't have any attack bonus in that system. And there's definitely no justification for his having Sneak Attack.
Well, no, it's not DDN because DDN can't model a game world where the primary movers and shakers in that world aren't adventurers. Maybe someday it will. Hopefully it'll get around to introducing NPC classes, but at the moment all that we have are PC classes, none of which suit Tyrion.

As for his mental stats, there's a tendency for people to ascribe crazy high stats to characters because of their own innate desire to make their characters with the best stats possible. What some forget is that some of the stats are tied to realworld attributes, INT and STR among them. INT is tied to IQ. Just multiply the number by 10 and you get the IQ level, and someone with an IQ of 120-144 (INT 12-14) is high above average. A 15 or higher would mark him as a genius and although Tyrion's definitely highly intelligent, educated, and well-read, he's certainly not in genius territory. By way of comparison, Stephen Hawking has an IQ of 160. In D&D terms he'd have INT 16. Tyrion is definitely no Stephen Hawking.

As for WIS, he's wiser than the average person, but again, stat inflation. He's not so wise that he was able to spot all the people who would end up betraying him later on (And given that you haven't read the novels, I don't want to spoil you). Point is, an above average WIS suits him, but not one which is much higher. And charismatic as he is to us, he's pretty well reviled by most people in the series. His charisma isn't high enough that he doesn't have to pay for women, for instance.

3e decision to say that the average person has 10-11 in all their stats is misleading.

It's actually quite accurate, as I pointed out above with the INT example.

Very few people should have a stat spread like that and many untrained people will still have +1 to+2 to attack rolls.

Maybe so in 3E, but given just how small the attack bonuses are in DDN and Bounded Accuracy, then he certainly wouldn't have any attack bonus in that system. And there's definitely no justification for his having Sneak Attack.



I see what you are saying but I think your assessment of IQ is flawed.  Stephen Hawking is a genius by any normal standard and 16-17 in 1e was 'Exceptional'  While 18 was 'Genius' and in DDN Genius would now be Int20.  My assessment of Tyrion is that he is exceptionally intelligent.  Wisdom I may grant you but as my D&D group points out Ned Stark's problem wasn't that he was incredibly stupid, it was that he was a LG character forced into a situation where his own moral code prevented him from taking the action that was necessary to secure his position. 

Stats are very subjective though.  I thought the official Dragonlance characters' stats were not well reflected by the way the characters were written for many of the reasons you put forward.

Out of curiosity, do you favour capping halfling strength or dwarf dexterity?  And if so, at what number?
Did anyone else notice the waves of minions that Grey Worm, Mormont, and Daario took on in the latest episode of GoT?

Waves of minions not fitting the series my arse. 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Did you notice Daario killing eight of them in the span of six seconds?

I didn't, either.  
I see what you are saying but I think your assessment of IQ is flawed.

No you don't, because you completely missed the fact that in that situation the INT score is tied directly to real world numbers. INT 16 is IQ 160, which makes one as intelligent as Stephen Hawking.

My assessment of Tyrion is that he is exceptionally intelligent.

He is, but that doesn't make him as smart as Stephen Hawking.

Out of curiosity, do you favour capping halfling strength or dwarf dexterity?  And if so, at what number?

And that has what exactly to do with recreating the characters from Game of Thrones? There's a difference between what a character should do in a narrative and what they should do in a game. No Halfling is likely to have Str 20 in a novel, but for a game? It doesn't matter. But if you're recreating an existing fictional character, then you have to go by what they can do in the novels. Giving them awesome stats because there are people in D&D with superior capabilities isn't a valid argument in support. A PC Wizard having INT 20 isn't an argument in favor of Tyrion having INT 16+, because Tyrion is not that smart.
Not eight but Grey Worm did end up killing 3 - 4 pretty quickly, and he's the longspear defender.

Jon Snu did rack up a pretty quick kill count against the Wildling Minions too. 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
They don't have to be minons. They may have been level 0 or level 1 warriors. Similar concept to minons but 4th ed does not have an exclusive on the idea. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I am anti-cross class skills.   Rather I would like the fighter to be able to say to the DM, hey I'm a fighter I should be able to do that better and the DM say okay.   All skills should be delving into other areas.   And the way you guys are always crying about fantasy literature, fighters are far far far more often the diplomat than the wizard.   

 
I have kind of come around to the idea of no class skills. Pick what you want or a back ground. A rogue could have an advnatage on the classic thief skills or whatever but exclusive access is getting harder and harder to justify.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Yep, they just have to be low-level. The concept of the 1 Hit Point Minion isn't necessary to make that work. As for Jon Snow, he only killed two Wildlings. The two Dire Wolves killed another two, leaving Tormund and Ygritte.

And personally, I've wanted to see skills divorced from classes for years now, so I'm glad to see 5E taking that route. I always found it incredibly frustrating when I had a character concept for a Fighter but couldn't make it work because the Fighter only had 2 Skill Points and a terrible skill selection.
Well, no, it's not DDN because DDN can't model a game world where the primary movers and shakers in that world aren't adventurers. Maybe someday it will. Hopefully it'll get around to introducing NPC classes, but at the moment all that we have are PC classes, none of which suit Tyrion.



Actually, it can. You have to not use class however. Use the character advancement table page 5 of the Character Creation pdf to give your character its Background, Skills, and Feats - expert feats are really nice to model non-adventuring characters.

In DDN, Tyrion would need something like a Noble Background, with his retainer being only Brom, the intimidate, persuade, sense motive and recall lore (Political lore) are somewhat fitting with the character too. To that you would probably add Folklore and Military lore, Gather Rumors and Listen with the superior skill training feat twice. The Charming Presence feat can be refluffed easily to work with gold appeal that Tyrion uses quite often to put someone in his pocket invoking the fable quote "a Lannister always pays his debts". Maybe a skill focus feat can be used to improve one of his interaction skills.

The attributes, well you choose those which make sense to you. Just be carefull and remember that in the bounded accuracy system, attributes checks are powerfull and important.

The HP, probably just the con mod, or con score, depending on the grittiness of your game. They never rises with level until he trains into a class level.

All in all, the character can vary between level 6 and level 9, or more if you want to add bigger skill dice.
I see what you are saying but I think your assessment of IQ is flawed.

No you don't, because you completely missed the fact that in that situation the INT score is tied directly to real world numbers. INT 16 is IQ 160, which makes one as intelligent as Stephen Hawking.

My assessment of Tyrion is that he is exceptionally intelligent.

He is, but that doesn't make him as smart as Stephen Hawking.

Out of curiosity, do you favour capping halfling strength or dwarf dexterity?  And if so, at what number?

And that has what exactly to do with recreating the characters from Game of Thrones? There's a difference between what a character should do in a narrative and what they should do in a game. No Halfling is likely to have Str 20 in a novel, but for a game? It doesn't matter. But if you're recreating an existing fictional character, then you have to go by what they can do in the novels. Giving them awesome stats because there are people in D&D with superior capabilities isn't a valid argument in support. A PC Wizard having INT 20 isn't an argument in favor of Tyrion having INT 16+, because Tyrion is not that smart.



Your asessment is still flawed.  Firstly, you are limiting quite low numbers to a very small minority (Sharon Stone has an IQ of 158 actually!).  Plus, does any human alive have an IQ of 200?  If Int 20 is as smart as human can be but the smartest human under your system would be one in a million with Int 18 then your numbers are off.  IQ scores are not a a definitive guide any more if they ever were.  To stat with, they vary from test to test, they change as you age, and they get better with practice.  I think one has to start at the racial cap and work down.  I prefer to use the descriptors from 1e but even that can be tricky - since Int 11 was very intelligent but would now be considered average.

I raise the question about 'racial' caps because the purpose was to look to build conversions of the characters FOR a game.  If one insists that every woman should have Str 8-9 because, the women are all weaker than the men, you end up with greatly skewed numbers that aren't much fun.  I prefer to consider that a woman who is stronger than other women could have a higher strength score even though the weakest male character might still be stronger than her.  I think you need to use a certain amount of abstraction when building characters for a game.

And I do favour racial limits personally - a halfling with Str20 leaves me with my head in my hands but I'd still allow it if there was in-story justification such as magic in the family history.  Tyrion is defintely weak because of his stature but I'd be reluctant to make that a point for point weakness as far as in-game stats go.

I remember laughing at the official stats of Gord the Rogue who had a slew of 18s but conversely too much 'realism' can be downright boring.  If the smartest person is Varis, whom I would not put above Int18 probably, I'd still give Tyrion Int16.  He's definitely smarter than most of the other characters and so he has to slot into the hierarchy.  If you slot Varis at Int16 it becomes hard to imagine how they could demonstrate Int18 or Int20 within the text.  Wizards (or Warlocks) aren't automatically smart either.  We didn't see much of them but I don't think I'd give the warlocks more than Int14-15.  Tyrion is smarter.


In DDN, Tyrion would need something like a Noble Background, with his retainer being only Brom, the intimidate, persuade, sense motive and recall lore (Political lore) are somewhat fitting with the character too. To that you would probably add Folklore and Military lore, Gather Rumors and Listen with the superior skill training feat twice. The Charming Presence feat can be refluffed easily to work with gold appeal that Tyrion uses quite often to put someone in his pocket invoking the fable quote "a Lannister always pays his debts". Maybe a skill focus feat can be used to improve one of his interaction skills.



That sounds like he's a bard with those abilities minus the spells and uses comedy/adlib as his method of performance.

Expert or aristocrat still seems better but GoT doesn't strike me as DnD without taking quite a bit of license.
but GoT doesn't strike me as DnD without taking quite a bit of license.




Truly?  I got the D&D vibe about 1.4 seconds into the opening intro.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

but GoT doesn't strike me as DnD without taking quite a bit of license.




Truly?  I got the D&D vibe about 1.4 seconds into the opening intro.




It's great as a fantasy setting but it's not the setting that throws me off as DnD; it's the mechanics of the system.  Unless we do populate all of our PC's with NPC classes from 3rd ed and heavily modify shamans and witch doctors we're out on the mechanics in various DnD versions trying to force those characters into our system.  Square peg meets round hole moment, hence the license comment.

Although on a side note, I did run a campaign where PC classes were off limits and the players played the NPC classes.  It was a blast.  ;)
I think she was making a joke about the producer's names.

Stop the H4TE

It's great as a fantasy setting but it's not the setting that throws me off as DnD; it's the mechanics of the system.  Unless we do populate all of our PC's with NPC classes from 3rd ed and heavily modify shamans and witch doctors we're out on the mechanics in various DnD versions trying to force those characters into our system.  Square peg meets round hole moment, hence the license comment.

Although on a side note, I did run a campaign where PC classes were off limits and the players played the NPC classes.  It was a blast.  ;)



Ahhh, okay, gotcha.  I was like..woah lol.  Yah without some kind of 'commoner class' it's a lot more difficult.

Never considered the NPC campaign, although mentioning it does remind me of a quest in WoW where you get to play a Questgiver.  It was really fun, so handled well I would see something like that working.  Especially for trope subversion!

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I think she was making a joke about the producer's names.



Gah, that would have been neat...but I confess to not knowing it until just now when I looked it up in response to this comment.  That'll teach me to skip through the credits!  (By 'intro' I meant 'opening couple of minutes' )

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I thought Game of Thrones could have been made by fans of D&D, and it seemed like that in the first 1.4 seconds, BUT that all stopped when they showed someone being decapitated all of a sudden.  In Game of Thrones, there is gore, violence, torture, bad language, and even sex.  Do you know what the worst thing is?  Characters get killed, over and over.  D&D is about "a chance", and no one is given one, so it's stupid.
I thought Game of Thrones could have been made by fans of D&D, and it seemed like that in the first 1.4 seconds, BUT that all stopped when they showed someone being decapitated all of a sudden.  In Game of Thrones, there is gore, violence, torture, bad language, and even sex.  Do you know what the worst thing is?  The main characters get killed, over and over.  D&D is about "a chance", and no one is given one, so it's stupid.



...them's fightin' werds, Moon-man!

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

I thought Game of Thrones could have been made by fans of D&D, and it seemed like that in the first 1.4 seconds, BUT that all stopped when they showed someone being decapitated all of a sudden.  In Game of Thrones, there is gore, violence, torture, bad language, and even sex.  Do you know what the worst thing is?  The main characters get killed, over and over.  D&D is about "a chance", and no one is given one, so it's stupid.



...them's fightin' werds, Moon-man!




You like it that much?  I watch it, but I can't tell you how much happier I'd have been if things went better for people.  If you haven't seen the last episode, don't.  It has made people cry even, I read online.
You like it that much?  I watch it, but I can't tell you how much happier I'd have been if things went better for people.  If you haven't seen the last episode, don't.  It has made people cry even, I read online.



Watched it a couple hours ago, and yah...it definitely made me cry.  Hard. 

But that's the whole cathartic effect, I guess...I feel good afterwards.  I absorb the drama, the descriptions, the little pieces of scenery often overlooked, and what parts hit me hardest...then try to translate them to improve my game methods.  What I think I like most is the depth and variance of the characters' motivations.  It's like each individual character is a study in a little enclosed microcosm, and I love to wonder about what they would have been like, or how they could have turned out in different circumstances, or what could have made them like they are.

Gah.  I think too much.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

You like it that much?  I watch it, but I can't tell you how much happier I'd have been if things went better for people.  If you haven't seen the last episode, don't.  It has made people cry even, I read online.



Watched it a couple hours ago, and yah...it definitely made me cry.  Hard. 

But that's the whole cathartic effect, I guess...I feel good afterwards.  I absorb the drama, the descriptions, the little pieces of scenery often overlooked, and what parts hit me hardest...then try to translate them to improve my game methods.  What I think I like most is the depth and variance of the characters' motivations.  It's like each individual character is a study in a little enclosed microcosm, and I love to wonder about what they would have been like, or how they could have turned out in different circumstances, or what could have made them like they are.

Gah.  I think too much.




I think my reaction is "awed".
Your asessment is still flawed. Firstly, you are limiting quite low numbers to a very small minority (Sharon Stone has an IQ of 158 actually!).  Plus, does any human alive have an IQ of 200? If Int 20 is as smart as human can be but the smartest human under your system would be one in a million with Int 18 then your numbers are off. IQ scores are not a a definitive guide any more if they ever were. To stat with, they vary from test to test, they change as you age, and they get better with practice. I think one has to start at the racial cap and work down. I prefer to use the descriptors from 1e but even that can be tricky - since Int 11 was very intelligent but would now be considered average.

You're the one whose assessment is flawed. It's been stated that one point of INT is 10 points of IQ. It doesn't get any simpler than that. You're just viewing it from a power gamers point of view where anything less than an 18 is crap. I hate to break it to you, but PC's in D&D are NOT representative of the real world, or even most fantasy fiction. Most of those awesome characters which you see in fantasy fiction, if properly converted to D&D, would be crap.

And no, it's unlikely that any human alive has an IQ of 200, which is the theoretical limit. Which again proves my point that PC characters are not representative of even the most exceptional people from history or literature. Never would you see multiple characters running around with 20 stats, as you would in a D&D campaign.

If one insists that every woman should have Str 8-9 because, the women are all weaker than the men, you end up with greatly skewed numbers that aren't much fun. I prefer to consider that a woman who is stronger than other women could have a higher strength score even though the weakest male character might still be stronger than her.  I think you need to use a certain amount of abstraction when building characters for a game.

The purpose of the thread is to rebuild characters accurately. If you're not rebuilding them accurately, then what's the point?

Tyrion is defintely weak because of his stature but I'd be reluctant to make that a point for point weakness as far as in-game stats go.

Then, once again, you're not statting up Tyrion Lannister. You're statting up some other guy who just looks like him but is far stronger and smarter than the real article.

I remember laughing at the official stats of Gord the Rogue who had a slew of 18s but conversely too much 'realism' can be downright boring.

Then what you want are the Dragon Magazine conversions where Stannis Baratheon was a Paladin and Daenerys Targaryen was a Sorcerer. If you don't want realism then you don't want stats for these characters. You want stats for hyper-charged versions of these characters. And if that's what you want then just say so, and we'll stat out a Tyrion Lannister who's a Level 15 Rogue with INT 20, DEX 20, and a +5 Hand Axe of Quickness.

If the smartest person is Varis, whom I would not put above Int18 probably, I'd still give Tyrion Int16. He's definitely smarter than most of the other characters and so he has to slot into the hierarchy. If you slot Varis at Int16 it becomes hard to imagine how they could demonstrate Int18 or Int20 within the text. Wizards (or Warlocks) aren't automatically smart either. We didn't see much of them but I don't think I'd give the warlocks more than Int14-15. Tyrion is smarter.

It's debateable if Tyrion is smarter than some of them. And even if he is, so what? Have you seen any spellcasters in GOT casting Level 9 spells? Or indeed, any indication whatsoever that the degree of magical potential is directly tied to Intelligence? After all, the Maesters are some of the smartest people in the world, and yet none of them can cast spells (Well, with the possible exception of Qyburn, and they kicked him out). Hell, they helped drive the dragons to extinction because they wanted to drive magic out of the world. So in the ASOIAF world, magical power and Intelligence aren't linked. As for Varys, I'd put both him and Littlefinger at INT 14, as well, only with higher WIS scores than Tyrion. Once again, you're thinking from the viewpoint of character optimization, not from the viewpoint of creating a faithful adaptation.
Actually, it can. You have to not use class however. Use the character advancement table page 5 of the Character Creation pdf to give your character its Background, Skills, and Feats - expert feats are really nice to model non-adventuring characters.

Given that you're stripping out a character class, then no, it can't. If you have to do heavy houseruling to bring him into existence then that just goes to show how right I am. Also, Retainers don't fight for you, so that rules out Bronn as a retainer. Besides, he's far to good a fighter to simply be an NPC Companion.
In Game of Thrones, there is gore, violence, torture, bad language, and even sex.

In other words, it's just like every single D&D campaign I've ever played in.

Do you know what the worst thing is? Characters get killed, over and over. D&D is about "a chance", and no one is given one, so it's stupid.

It's different, yes, but stupid? That's a hell of a stretch. ASOIAF is so far shaping up to be one of the classic works of fantasy literature in our era, and that's certainly not because it's "stupid." It's based in a realistic world, where yes, people who play around with swords all the time do invariably get hurt and even the good guys get killed. It's not fair, it's not just, but neither is the real world. History is replete with instances in which the good guys die and the bad guys win. If any kind of story can be described as stupid, it's one which always ends like a Saturday morning cartoon, one in which the good guys always win and never suffer any negative consequences. ASOIAF, however, is as far away from that as you can get.

As for chances, the character who met a bad end in the most recent episode didn't get there all of a sudden. That happened to him as a result of an entire string of mistakes which he made which led up to that happening to him. I'm going to miss his character, but he got to that point in part through all of his bad choices. He made mistake after mistake after mistake and his older and more experienced opponent took advantage of them. Regardless of that, plenty other characters have had plenty of chances. Bran and Rickon survived Winterfell, even though Bran's a cripple, and Bran is developing the power to Warg. Arya has survived an incredible amount of danger despite of the fact that she's a little girl, and she's well on her way to growing up to be an incredibly dangerous person. Sansa has so far managed to survive all the torture and abuse heaped her way. Jon Snow has been placed in incredibly dangerous situations as well, including facing off against a dead man, and he's come out on top every time so far. Stannis Baratheon, despite all his setbacks, continues to fight on while all his enemies destroy each other and may very well end up outlasting them all. And Daenerys Targaryen had an outright miracle occur when she brought dragons back into the world, and just like that the Beggar Queen became a conquerer of cities and a force to be reckoned with.
I thought Game of Thrones could have been made by fans of D&D, and it seemed like that in the first 1.4 seconds, BUT that all stopped when they showed someone being decapitated all of a sudden.  In Game of Thrones, there is gore, violence, torture, bad language, and even sex.  Do you know what the worst thing is?  Characters get killed, over and over.  D&D is about "a chance", and no one is given one, so it's stupid.



 Sounds like Paizo era Dungeon and Pathfinder;)

 GoT is going to turn into a modern classic, might even become more popular than Tolkein if it hasn't alread and popular acclaim has it as something like the 3rd best TV show of all time IIRC.

 Ok its number 2.

www.imdb.com/search/title?num_votes=5000... 

Not that 3/5 are not very fluffy shows. Breaking Bad, The Wire, GoT. Might explain the appeal of early D&D. Give me gritty over fluffy pop garbage. 

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

In Game of Thrones, there is gore, violence, torture, bad language, and even sex.

In other words, it's just like every single D&D campaign I've ever played in.

Do you know what the worst thing is? Characters get killed, over and over. D&D is about "a chance", and no one is given one, so it's stupid.

It's different, yes, but stupid? That's a hell of a stretch. ASOIAF is so far shaping up to be one of the classic works of fantasy literature in our era, and that's certainly not because it's "stupid." It's based in a realistic world, where yes, people who play around with swords all the time do invariably get hurt and even the good guys get killed. It's not fair, it's not just, but neither is the real world. History is replete with instances in which the good guys die and the bad guys win. If any kind of story can be described as stupid, it's one which always ends like a Saturday morning cartoon, one in which the good guys always win and never suffer any negative consequences. ASOIAF, however, is as far away from that as you can get.



Take a look at anjelika's posts above.  I am awed by how much FOR her D&D game she gets from Game of Thrones.  I do not think the characters in it are given a fair chance, however, besides the fact that there is so much tragedy there.  I don't think it would be fair for me to criticize it here.  I don't think it's a model for D&D, for the reasons I said, and I am saddened to learn your games have had bad content.
What's to be saddened about? We had fun. Seriously, though, you've never had a D&D game where there was at least gore and violence? You have people running around stabbing each other with swords, incinerating each other with fireballs, and werewolves, trolls, and gnolls trying to eat people. How is that not gory and violent?
What's to be saddened about? We had fun. Seriously, though, you've never had a D&D game where there was at least gore and violence? You have people running around stabbing each other with swords, incinerating each other with fireballs, and werewolves and vampires running around trying to eat people. How is that not gory and violent?



Well, we're not talking about just gore and violence, which are obviously part of D&D when you think about it.  Let's assume we are, though.  The gore and violence in the game aren't fleshed out very much.  There are hit points and damage instead of rules for limbs being cut off, for instance (despite options for this existing in different editions).  When you attack someone, you do understand that you're swinging a deadly weapon, and that when he goes down, there is blood and death, but it's not being fleshed out anywhere near the level it would need to be to compare with a live-action display of it like you see in Game of Thrones.  "A picture is worth 1,000 words," so we would need to say 1,000 words to each other to describe in injuries and death in the game to equal that.  This mainly applies to gore, but violence, too, is dreadful.  When it's just in the game, in game terms, it's a lot less disturbing.

The other elements, torture, bad language, and sex, aren't good for different reasons.  Torture seldom comes up in D&D, but when it does, again, it's not fleshed out like it is in a live-action display.  Would you sit through 1,000 words describing someone being slowly, cruelly maimed?  In my campaign, one NPC was being tortured to death and raised over and over again, and fewer words were enough to drive that point home.

Bad language never comes up in the game, and sex is considered adult content if it's described in any explicit way.  Some people mention brothels or say that bad language was as commonplace in medieval times as it is today, and use it to try to give their games more realism; however, these things will still offend many people, and I'd have to say people are better off without them.
i called the wedding murders like 20 min before they happened. guess people are dumb, when you piss off a king you get dead quick.
i called the wedding murders like 20 min before they happened. guess people are dumb, when you piss off a king you get dead quick.



 It was the worst kept secret. We had already read the books and we also knew in advance that edisode was going to be about the red wedding lol.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Well, we're not talking about just gore and violence, which are obviously part of D&D when you think about it. Let's assume we are, though.

We have to think about it now? I thought it was self-evident. And you're the one who considered the presence of gore and violence to be a negative of Game of Thrones which in your opinion doesn't exist in D&D. 

The gore and violence in the game aren't fleshed out very much. There are hit points and damage instead of rules for limbs being cut off, for instance (despite options for this existing in different editions). When you attack someone, you do understand that you're swinging a deadly weapon, and that when he goes down, there is blood and death, but it's not being fleshed out anywhere near the level it would need to be to compare with a live-action display of it like you see in Game of Thrones. "A picture is worth 1,000 words," so we would need to say 1,000 words to each other to describe in injuries and death in the game to equal that. This mainly applies to gore, but violence, too, is dreadful. When it's just in the game, in game terms, it's a lot less disturbing.

Wow, you totally stretched that phrase beyond all logic or meaning. The saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" doesn't literally mean that you need a thousand words to descibe a picture, and if you only use 999 words then you didn't describe it. It just means that a picture often gets an idea across much more quickly than words. You certainly don't need a thousand words to describe a lot of what happens in Game of Thrones. "Your opponent walks up to you and stabs you through the stomach, killing you" accurately describes a scene like that occuring in a D&D game, and yeah, I'd think that most people would realize how gory and violent that action is, no matter how many words were used to describe it.

The other elements, torture, bad language, and sex, aren't good for different reasons. Torture seldom comes up in D&D, but when it does, again, it's not fleshed out like it is in a live-action display. Would you sit through 1,000 words describing someone being slowly, cruelly maimed? In my campaign, one NPC was being tortured to death and raised over and over again, and fewer words were enough to drive that point home.

Honestly, I seriously have to wonder about some of the people on these forums sometimes... Again, there's no literal rule anywhere that states that you literally need a thousand words to describe a single event. You certainly don't need a thousand words to describe Theon having his finger flayed and then chopped off. Hell, I just described what happened and that didn't add up to a thousand words.

Bad language never comes up in the game

Good for you, but most people I know swear like sailors.

and sex is considered adult content if it's described in any explicit way.

Nobody ever gets explicit in any game I've played either. At most some guy says he's going to a brothel and the DM asks him to roll a percentage to tell how good he was, and he had a smug look on his face when he rolled a 96%. It was funny, but yeah, there was never anything explicit at the table. It's up to the comfort level of the individual group, though. 
 
Some people mention brothels or say that bad language was as commonplace in medieval times as it is today, and use it to try to give their games more realism; however, these things will still offend many people, and I'd have to say people are better off without them.

That's great for you, and maybe you prefer to run your D&D games like Disney cartoons, but a great many people don't, so what may be best for you is not necessarily better for others, who demand a little more realism from their games than what you would find in the plot of your typical Disney animated movie.
i called the wedding murders like 20 min before they happened. guess people are dumb, when you piss off a king you get dead quick.



 It was the worst kept secret. We had already read the books and we also knew in advance that edisode was going to be about the red wedding lol.



Obviously, many people didn't read the books and they cared enough about the characters to HOPE and to TRUST that nothing like that would happen when it did.  You might have guessed it would happen, but that doesn't mean anyone is dumb for not guessing that.  The audience is penalized for coming to like the characters in this show, to see so many characters you get to know and root for and love die so easily, it makes me say "How dare the author put us through that?".  You go on, though, as anjelika said eloquently.
Well, we're not talking about just gore and violence, which are obviously part of D&D when you think about it. Let's assume we are, though.

We have to think about it now? I thought it was self-evident. And you're the one who considered the presence of gore and violence to be a negative of Game of Thrones which in your opinion doesn't exist in D&D. 

The gore and violence in the game aren't fleshed out very much. There are hit points and damage instead of rules for limbs being cut off, for instance (despite options for this existing in different editions). When you attack someone, you do understand that you're swinging a deadly weapon, and that when he goes down, there is blood and death, but it's not being fleshed out anywhere near the level it would need to be to compare with a live-action display of it like you see in Game of Thrones. "A picture is worth 1,000 words," so we would need to say 1,000 words to each other to describe in injuries and death in the game to equal that. This mainly applies to gore, but violence, too, is dreadful. When it's just in the game, in game terms, it's a lot less disturbing.

Wow, you totally stretched that phrase beyond all logic or meaning. The saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" doesn't literally mean that you need a thousand words to descibe a picture, and if you only use 999 words then you didn't describe it. It just means that a picture often gets an idea across much more quickly than words. You certainly don't need a thousand words to describe a lot of what happens in Game of Thrones. "Your opponent walks up to you and stabs you through the stomach, killing you" accurately describes a scene like that occuring in a D&D game, and yeah, I'd think that most people would realize how gory and violent that action is, no matter how many words were used to describe it.

The other elements, torture, bad language, and sex, aren't good for different reasons. Torture seldom comes up in D&D, but when it does, again, it's not fleshed out like it is in a live-action display. Would you sit through 1,000 words describing someone being slowly, cruelly maimed? In my campaign, one NPC was being tortured to death and raised over and over again, and fewer words were enough to drive that point home.

Honestly, I seriously have to wonder about some of the people on these forums sometimes... Again, there's no literal rule anywhere that states that you literally need a thousand words to describe a single event. You certainly don't need a thousand words to describe Theon having his finger flayed and then chopped off. Hell, I just described what happened and that didn't add up to a thousand words.

Bad language never comes up in the game

Good for you, but most people I know swear like sailors.

and sex is considered adult content if it's described in any explicit way.

Nobody ever gets explicit in any game I've played either. At most some guy says he's going to a brothel and the DM asks him to roll a percentage to tell how good he was, and he had a smug look on his face when he rolled a 96%. It was funny, but yeah, there was never anything explicit at the table. It's up to the comfort level of the individual group, though. 
 
Some people mention brothels or say that bad language was as commonplace in medieval times as it is today, and use it to try to give their games more realism; however, these things will still offend many people, and I'd have to say people are better off without them.

That's great for you, and maybe you prefer to run your D&D games like Disney cartoons, but a great many people don't, so what may be best for you is not necessarily better for others, who demand a little more realism from their games than what you would find in the plot of your typical Disney animated movie.



No.  The saying "A picture is worth 1,000 words" might not be meant to be taken literally, but it's said that way for a reason.  The pictures in the TV show are far worse than a typical D&D session, even without attempts to steer it into a Disney cartoon like level of content.