This has perplexed me for much of 1.0 and continues to bother me. Why is it that characters aren't differentiated in relative strength between their icons? Is it simply to streamline the game? It doesn't seem very Nedly that characters are always equally good at anything they can do.

Streamlining and simplicity.

Not all characters *are* as good at everything they do. Take Jaime; in a military challenge, he gains renown (and doesn't kneel to attack) - but in an intrigue challenge, he's just a body like any other.

There are other ways to differentiate, including characters that gain strength during certain challenges, (or lose str during others: see Ancient Mariner). Those are probably a better solution than giving characters 2-3 different STR values, given the number of interactions with character strength (e.g. STR pumps, burn, cards that only work on others with STR X or lower/higher).

There's also the card real-estate question; would STR values still be easy to see across the table?

If character STR varied across their icons, what would their base STR be outside of challenges?

If character STR varied across their icons, what would their base STR be outside of challenges?

Haven't you heard? We need to take the average STR across all printed icons to figure that out.

What STR would we use when an icon is gained? 0 STR?

I think it's just simply easier to have the modifications as part of a character ability than it is to have made it a standard.

What it really comes down to is that this was made as a design choice long ago. The very beginning of the CCG, in fact.

Rather than giving character cards a "Hit Point" or "Toughness" statistic, the original design pretty much said that anyone could die, unexpectedly and without preamble. And I think people generally agree that is a fairly thematic part of the game. The use of STR as any sort of toughness/viability variable didn't show up with any real regularity until Targ came along and burn/kill became a "thing" (rather than an unusual or exceptional effect - ala Threat from the North).

The thing to keep in mind is that "STR," as a measure of effectiveness, can be defined in wildly different ways. Tyrion (LotR) is nowhere near the swordsman Jaime (LotR) is, but they have the same "effectiveness" in military challenges (3 STR). On the face of it, this seems totally wrong, and that Tyrion should have some sort of -X STR modifier during MIL challenges (or Jaime should have some sort of +X STR). But is it really wrong? Tyrion has shown great battle effectiveness by knowing exactly where to be and where. He has shown the ability to motivate men in battle. He has shown the ability to plan and execute battle strategy in a way that Jaime hasn't. Put them both in a pit with a couple of swords? I bet on Jaime. Every time. Put them in charge of armies facing each other across a battle field. Tyrion wins. Hands down. So, which one is truly the more effective with MIL challenges?

A similar argument can be made for effectiveness in INT. Tyrion is by far the superior schemer and planner. No one is going to argue that he is the smarter, more cunning individual. But Jaime has shown an amazing ability to "play the game" is, by no other means, than by not playing the game and doing what others expect him to. When he refused to be the pawn in his father's machinations, giving Oathkeeper instead to Brienne to find and protect the Stark girls, he threw a major wrench into the INT plans of others. When he managed the siege at Riverrun and got the Blackfish to open the gates - he wasn't particularly clever or devious, but he certainly was finding solution other than the sword everyone expected of him. So really, is it so hard to argue that Jaime could be as effective in INT as Tyrion, given the right circumstances?

So while I think the basic argument for "same STR/effectiveness across all icons" is primarily an "ease of design and gameplay" choice, I think it would be very, very hard to find a variable-STR solution that worked thematically in all situations - other than the fact that certain characters just shouldn't have certain icons (which, of course, they don't).

Honestly, the only thing that bugs me is the insistence on calling it STR rather than just spelling the word out. It sounds very RPGey, which isn't the flavor I want to get when I step into GRRM's world.

STRGRRM. It feels all right to me, speaking honestly.

how about POT for potency :-)

bleh.