Recent discussions on the Fear of Winter-Blockade-Rule by Decree plot combination and how they contribute to a Negative Play Experience (NPE) have gotten me thinking about what I, personally, view as NPE's. I'm happy to say I've had very few with AGoT, though I have had a handful of them. I had many more when I was playing Magic. I thought I'd share a couple of my NPE's (one from Magic, one from AGoT) to look at what it was about those games that made them such a negative experience.

My first real NPE in a CCG style game was when I was playing Magic online. Overall I really had fun with that game, but two things made me quite - the first was the cost to keep up with the new releases and the second was some seriously un-fun games I had. The very first game of that sort pretty much exemplifies my issues with the game as a whole.

I was playing a fun White-Black cleric tribal deck. It had a pretty good track record, and the one of the lynch pins of that deck was Doubtless One javascript:void(0);/*1277126229486*/ . When that deck got going it was very hard to stop, with lots of damage prevention and creature removal to buy time until I could get out one or two Doubtless Ones. It was a solid deck for casual play, which was all I was interested in. One evening I played a pick up game with another fairly new player. His deck was scattered and unfocused. I was easily trouncing him and giving him pointers based on my limited experience with the game. It was all going well enough, and then he played Platinum Angel javascript:void(0);/*1277126512398*/ . OK, it was a bit annoying, but I could easily buy time until I drew one of my black creature removal cards. I had enough flying creatures and damage prevention to block the angel, and Doubtless One was gaining my plenty of life every turn regardless. It was only a matter of time. However, NEXT turn he played Whispersilk Cloak javascript:void(0);/*1277126619387*/ on his Platinum Angel. Not only couldn't I block the angel anymore, I couldn't target it with creature removal spells thanks to the shroud effect of the cloak. Thanks to the lack of artifact removal in my deck, I was destined to lose the game when I was decked and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it.

Discussing this on the Magic boards (which were a much less friendly place then here) I was told that my deck sucked because I had no artifact removal. My point of view, then and now, was that it was absurd that a simple two card combo could turn an otherwise sub-par deck into a literally unstoppable juggernaut if you lacked a very specific type of card. All you have to do is survive long enough to get the angel out followed by the cloak and then the win is guaranteed, and seven mana isn't all that hard to pull off, especialy against control decks (like mine was). That was a definite NPE. After having many such experiences, I soured on Magic and eventually dropped it.

My AGoT NPE happened in this past weekend's tournament, and it's a very different beast - the kind I'm OK with in the long run. I was playing Martell against schrecklich's Lanni Shadows deck. I started out well - for all of one turn. I ended the first round with 8 power, and it was all downhill from there. He just pulled an amazing amount of kneel and I simply did not have enough characters in hand to keep up with it. The end result was that every turn I had all, or close to all, of my characters knelt before the challenges phase and there was nothing I could do other than sit there and take it. The game was over in short order. As schrecklich himself said in the NYC regionals thread, the game was more frustrating than exciting. While I was admittedly annoyed throughout most of the game, I got over it and saw it as a learning experience more than anything else. Unlike the Magic game I described earlier, this was not some sub-par deck he was fielding that had a couple of overpowered cards in it. It was a very tightly focused, well designed deck that did exactly what it was meant to do. So while I did consider it an NPE at the time since I really was not able to do anything significant (except when I managed to discard his Castellan with Ser Arys Oakheart - that was satisfying ), it was short lived and did nothing to diminish my overall enjoyment of the game as a whole. Any CCG-style game is going to have times like that, and the whole POINT of building an effective deck is to minimize your opponent's chance of winning. Some approaches are just more annoying in the short term than others.

So ultimately I see two types of NPE's - ones that are a reflection on the game as a whole, and ones that just mean you got batted around like a tether ball in this particular match. As long as we avoid the first when it comes to the card pool, I'm OK with occasionally experiencing the second.

Oh, and I did face up against the FoW-Blockade-RBD decree combo a couple of times. Once I won, once I lost, and I didn't consider either time to be an NPE. Then again, my own deck runs FoW and it's not hard for it to recover from it in most situations.

So the dividing line for you between the 2 is that in the first (and more negative of the 2), you feel like no matter how you had built your deck, you'd still get pimp-slapped by the overpowered cards, but in the second, the game is painful, but you know there are things you can do about it.

That seems like a good line. The FoW/Blockade/RBD/(and sometimes Siege @ Winterfell plus Epic events) this seemed like the first, but the general consensus I heard at the NY Regional is that it is more the second - albeit a bit frustrating and narrowing since we are not swimming in answers to it right now.

I define NPE as Magic the Gathering. I've played a lot of card games. AGoT being the newest for me. And each game had it's different issues, but to me, what defines a negative player experience is the community.

I don't really mind losing to a cool combo. It sucks that they got it out and I have no answer, but at the same time, bully for them! That's the point of their deck most likely (and if it's not, they got lucky, and I can take solace in that.) and that'd be like them getting mad at me for kneeling their board for three unopposed claims.

At kingsmoot I met a lot of great people who were very patient with my slow beginner's playstyle. They helped me learn a bit of strategy as well as some key rules tie-ups that might have affected me in later rounds or future games. It was great. We played games. Made jokes. And mostly just had fun, which is what the game is and should be about.

Unfortunately that's not always the community setting I've been exposed to, especially in a competitive forum. More often then not, people are abrasive and strongly set in the way things are "Supposed to be". And if you violate that code they treat you like a simpleton or a burden. Magic is the most prevalent of these communities. It's strange that they're arguably the largest group but also the most closed minded. I recently played a draft at my local game store just for the hell of it. I was bored, had a lot of time on my hands, and figured "What's Ten Dollars". I hadn't played magic in about two years, but the game never changes.

My first round was against a 17 or 18 year old kid and as soon as we sat down trouble started. We rolled off to see who went first. I won, so he looked at me and asked "Play or Stay". I considered it, and then said "I'll go first then." And like I'd punched him in the throat, he reeled back in his seat, gritted his teeth, and repeated "Play or Stay".

Normally I would have been amused by the situation, but the absolute absurdity and lack of social grace this person presented took me a bit too off-guard. So, I smiled and repeated "I'll go first then." He repeated himself. I laughed. Drew my hand. And then proceeded to intentionally call everything I did for the rest of the game by the wrong name.

For me it was whatever. I made light of the situation and found a way to have fun using the obnoxious player as opposed to with him, which would have been much better for both of us. But I can't help but wonder how new players would want to deal with this. I was on my home turf. A block from my house. Surrounded by people I see two or three times a week. But for a stranger coming to the shop for the first time, who may or may not have just picked up the game... That would be an awful first time. Part of me expected this type of persona at Kingsmoot, but I was happy to be wrong.

tl;dr version:

Magic players are generally unwieldy and provide much NPE with nerd rage. Players make NPE for me. Not the game or it's mechanics.

Deep down i'm still a Ned and rally to the banner of the Lord of Brewtown. The strongest NPE's i've experienced are where the card game mechanics dominate and the immersive experience is gone.

So - unstoppbale combos like ktom's Septon deck, or Ktom's Alannys deck, or ktom's....Hey! Wait a minute......

Stag Lord said:

Although, there is nothing sweeter than beating an NPE deck...as my experience in NYC a few years ago is still one of my favorite aGoT moments (Sith and the Septon deck repeatedly hitting the one card in the deck that stopped it).

I think a very few mechanics define it for me. Not playing is a big one - so kneeling (I still think dups should be able to cancel any triggered ability as well). Milling has the potential to be, but luckily really never has been. At one time trait manip was close (i.e. turning characters into Warships and discarding them...).

But like Stag said, anything that TOTALLY removes you from the world and feel of what we are to be playing get that way. FFG has done a pretty good job overall, with a few hiccups.

lol @ stags ~Its so true! Ktom is a walking NPE!

Good topic here, and I like how you had the two different types of NPE. I definitely HATE the first type of NPE. I ran into the same problem on Magic Online. I knew my deck was the better built, but you'd have some dude who just bought one or two (crazy expensive I imagine) cards that would roll you. I can't stand Magic for that reason. You shouldn't be able to win a game with one card.

I also agree that the Community and players makes a big difference towards the NPE feel. If I'm playing Ktom, and one of his (~silly) autowin decks, I am fine if I lose, because Ktom is an awesome guy and is usually making a few funny remarks here and there to keep the mood light. However, if I'm playing against an autowin magic deck and the other player is taunting me and telling me I should just concede then I might just have to burn some cards. I mean what possible enjoyment could you get out of that?! Oh well. I quit competitive magic right after the invasion cycle, at which point I found another card game that seemed alot more balanced (~except for the uberbroken 45 card stark supercrazyawesomekill murder decks!).

As for the second type of NPE, I agree that at the time they seem really frustrating and annoying, but afterwards you think about it and learn to play around it. Glad to hear that people have found ways to play around it btw! I know I have a few tricks I'll be using for GenCon. Although I wonder if we'll actually see too many of the fear decks now that they already seem to be yesterday's news.

*ktom

That's basically it, although it's a LITTLE more subtle than that. The Platinum Angel-Whispersilk cloak combo wouldn't bother me so much if it required a solid deck to pull off the win. It doesn't. Any crappy deck can win if it just happens to get that combo out, which isn't all that tough with 4x of each in the deck. And it doesn't just encourage a specific response - it DEMANDS it. You absolutely, positively cannot win without artifact removal or some sort of non-targeted removal against a Platinum Angel with the cloak on. For all the discussion on FoW on the boards, it doesn't come close to having this level of impact on the game. I consider Platinum Angel to be just a stupid card that exemplifies what Magic had turned into when I was playing. I mean, seriously - "You can't win and I can't lose"... what the hell kind of card is that?? I don't know that it's necessarily overpowered for the environment in, it just betrays a design approach that I find annoying.

*DJ Suckapunch

I have to agree with you here. The AGoT community is just awesome. I'm still fairly new myself (though not as new as you), but I've had nothing but positive experiences with the people I've played with. I don't entirely discount the mechanics of the game, though. To address your point specifically, I have a feeling that the AGoT mechanics and design philosophy tend attract a more mature gamer, while Magic tends to attract those who actually ENJOY playing decks that lock your opponent down and deny them the opportunity to do anything at all. Not all players are like that, of course, but I suspect that AGoT's more subtle,complex card interactions would not appeal to the average Magic player.

Staton said:

~ So... win or lose, I am just no fun to play against? Or since I'm a walking NPE, it's a good thing I usually sit down to play?

I always thought of the Viserys deck as more of an NPE than the Septon deck. The Septon deck was easy to disrupt, and if you did, I couldn't win. I think it is actually more of an NPE to play than to play against. The Viserys deck was more of an NPE in that it took everything you did and just...won.

Don't listen to them Ktom. I had a great time playing with you. Even if you did tear my heart out and stomp all over it when I was only 1 power away from victory.

Dj Suckapunch said:

~ The trick is to tear the heart out and stomp all over it in a nice way ....

Arg. I don't post much in general but I had to take the bait and chime in.

First off, I hate the term "NPE". This was a buzzword that was used in Decipher's hey day and there hasn't been a time when this word isn't thrown around when someone loses a game in an unsatisfactory (in their eyes) way. The trouble is, NPE itself so subjective where do you draw the line? A new player loses to the immunity Viper/Taste for Blood combo because he didn't have a way to deal with uber characters. NPE? An intermediate player loses to Lanni kneel. NPE? An advanced player loses to a well built power grab deck. NPE? I don't know the answer to any of these questions.

Everyone has their own subjective play experience, and everyone hates losing. So does every loss count as a NPE? Or does it make it a NPE when the loss is one sided? My point is many times it is the player, not the cards. What I mean by that is a strong player will find a way to win a one sided game usually with any good cards in the environment. In this case it was Lanni kneel. Tomorrow it will be Stark rush. Taking that a step further, some houses simply don't have the cards in the environment (yet) to be tier 1. Close maybe, but not quite. Doesn't mean those houses can't win a big event, they just aren't as consistent and need a little luck with match ups.

R&D will do what it takes to make sure the game is as balanced as can be, but I don't think there are many NPEs in the environment. Fear of Winter should be watched because it sets a dangerous precedent. For the most part however, in any competitive tournament I would be prepared for the most cutthroat decks possible, and take each loss as a learning experience. Honestly, I've found the more experience I have in any competitive pursuit, they fewer "NPEs" there are.

Dj Suckapunch said:

Yeah I agree. I think some of my most fun games were while playing Ktom! And I actually think that Ktom could be playing a fear of winter deck and make me enjoy it! I don't know why though. Maybe Ktom is magical? lol

ccgtrader99 said:

I concur, I think that NPE's are very rarely tied to the cards you play and instead have their source in people.

For example, at ChiCon Snow, my first official AGoT event and only the second time I played any one outside my three person meta, I went a generous 1-3. By "generous" I mean that I was pretty lucky to get that victory. Did I sometimes get frustrated with how my deck was performing? Sure, but like CCG said, everyone hates losing. However, I still had a great time. All my opponents were very pleasant, with no douchebaggery to speak of. Heck, my most pleasant play experience was my first round 15-1 loss.

I think Lannister does seem to get more than its fair share of developer love, but it's not ridiculous in my eyes....yet.

In my gaming experience, I've come to realise that I generally encounter 2 main types of NPE, both of which have been talked about in length here:

1: Poor deck management: This to me is when a player builds not a whole deck (regardless of the game being played) but opts to put in one or two cards- such as the angel combo pointed out earlier. This is not gaming. When the game asks you to build a deck of 40 or 60 cards, building a deck of 2-4 cards and filling the rest with other cards designed to stall play long enough to play said "game winners" takes away the entire experience of gaming, which starts at deck building, not with the first hand of the game.

2: A-hole gamers: There's a few different types I've encountered in my days, and some are worse than others. There are the players who are so arrogant that they would rather talk down than talk to their opponents. Being better at a game means you should be trying to help those who are worse, not demeaning them. Also, any player who intentionally tries to draw out games and take away the experience itself. I'm not referring to stall decks, which is a viable and occasionally fun deck style, I'm talking about the players themselves, who dispute every decision made in the game, just to draw it out more. I'm a firm believer in being social and talking while playing because gaming is a social event, but when some people make it their personal mission to interupt the flow of the game to argue or stall, it kinda ruins the experience IMO.

NPEs for me are when you get a game of Munchkin, Babylon 5 CCG, or some such thing that goes on for so long that players stop trying to win just so the game will end.

ktom said:

Still working my way through responses, so this might have been addressed, but I wanted to point out that in the first example, his deck could have been built with artifact removal or similar contingencies (black does like making people sacrifice characters which dodges shroud) which it seems the Magic players might have suggested. At least, I would hope they were that helpful.

Kennon said:

They did suggest it, but in a pretty obnoxious way (as in, "any idiot knows to add artifact removal!" or something like that, ignoring the part where I mentioned that I was a new player). That definitely contributed to the NPE. Still, I don't like that style of card design that creates simple combos that are unbeatable without specific responses built into your deck. One of the things I love about AGoT is that it really doesn't have cards like that.

I think I mostly come down on the same side as Kennon and ccgtrader99 on this one (though still with some sympathy for JeffK). I have played Magic for a long time (and am in the small minority of AGoT that really respects Magic as an awesome game (just can't handle the monetary requirements)), and I don't see much difference between the Platinum Angel and the Lanni kneel examples. In both cases, one deck did not have the tools to combat elements of the other deck and so was rendered powerless. That's how some matches play out.

Usually, NPE is defined in terms of the elimination of player interaction from a game. This description covers things like resource denial (eg land destruction and discard in Magic), powerful combos (usually infinite ones that win right away but also things like the Platinum Angel above), and various forms of control (eg counterspell based decks in Magic, kneel based decks in AGoT...).

I think there are two ways you can judge decks/game elements in these terms. One way is the casual/relative way, where you judge how one deck/game element plays out against an "average" deck (ie a deck made up of a bunch of fun looking cards without much testing/thought about how it will play out against decks that other people will be playing). From this casual perspective, the existence of something like the Lanni kneel deck is problematic because it is probably going to be able to autopilot to victory 90+% of the time with the opponent rarely having a relevant standing character during the challenges phase.

The other way to judge the degree of player interaction in a game is the competitive/absolute way. From this perspective, you ask not how a deck will do against a particular deck/game element but how it could do if its designer chose to address this element. In an open environment, it will usually be the case that one deck will emerge as the strongest against similarly unprepared decks. The question then becomes what answers are available to that deck (eg playing stand or trigger cancel/immunity against Lanni kneel, lowering the gold curve/using disruptive cards like Uneasy Truce against Fear of Winter rush). If the environment ever devolved to the point that games were basically decided by who had the better flop (ie all player interaction / skill were removed from the actual game play because eg some degenerate combo allowed players to win regularly on the first round), that would be pretty unappealing to me. Also, if the format devolved to something where eg Targ beat Bara 100% of the time, Bara beat Lanni 100% of the time, and Lanni beat Targ 100% of the time and all three beat everything else, that would also be unappealing.

When judging the competitive tournament environment associated with a game, I think you have to look at it from the latter perspective. Personally, I have a strong Shagga/Nedly side and I like to build decks where I get out Ghost and John Snow with Longclaw and Maester Aemon for extra saves or a Targ deck where I keep recycling Dragon Bites and Bones of a Child with Xaro's Home, but I know I have to save those decks for when I play with my more casual meta (where no one has played Lanni recently because they prefer building fun Shagga/Ned decks to building anti-Lanni decks).

Player attitude is a whole different issue.... One of the things I like the most about AGoT is how laid back the community is for the most part. I actually appreciate the anti-social ultra-competitive Magic community as well but only when I'm in the right mood and then in a different way from AGoT (partly competitively and partly ironically in the way Dj suckapunch described above). Magic (is way to big to make generalizations like this but oh well) is like a mini-Poker. A lot of players are drawn to it because it's one of the biggest games with a highly structured organized play system and those players are playing to win, not to enjoy the game for its aesthetics. If AGoT had the player base and organized play support of Magic, I think it would draw in the anti-social ultra-competitive crowd just as well because it has the depth of play to reward practice and preparation.

Schreck, I actually do see a difference between the Platinum Angel combo and a Lanni kneel deck (like say, oh, yours ). The Platinum Angel/Cloak combo can create an unbeatable situation using ANY deck if your opponent doesn't have the right response. Just slap them in, not even having to worry about what color deck you're playing, and you're done. No real thought is required and all you need to do is survive long enough to get them into play. I understand this deck is not unbeatable, of course, even without artifact removal. A fast deck could beat it before it gets the combo out. A blue deck could counterspell either the Angel or the Cloak if they're lucky enough to have one in hand. Wrath of God would take care of the Angel nicely. Etc. etc.

The problem, as I see it, is that two cards, thrown into any random deck, have the potential to skew the game in such a way that specific responses are required to deal with it if you even want a chance to win. The potential to shut down your opponent completely should take more effort. For Lanni kneel to work that effectively it takes a fair amount of kneeling cards in your deck. It needs to be a focus of your deck. And even then any good deck has the potential to still win with cancels, a rush of characters that outstrips your kneel, icon removal, standing effects, etc. There are a wide variety of theoretical responses to hyper-kneel, even if not all of them exist effectively enough in the current environment just yet. Platinum Angel+Whispersilk Cloak, in contrast, require very specific cards in your deck if you want to even THINK of winning once they hit the table. I can't think of any two card combination in AGoT that is even close to being that has the potential to have that huge of an impact once it's in play.

Ultimately, my problem isn't with this combo itself. It's what it says about the design philosophy of the game. There are so many cards out there designed to minimize player interaction that most of the games I played were not epic struggles but one sided shut downs based on who got their killer combo out first. On top of that, it wasn't uncommon for the environment at any given time to DEMAND that you have artifact removal or land destruction or targeted creature removal if you wanted to have a prayer of winning. THAT is the NPE that I hate, and THAT is what I hope to never see in AGoT.

schrecklich said:

Pre LCG there was a strong and somewhat vocal minority of players who did have this approach. The attitude has been pretty much gone since the format switch. Jeff's htread is an interesting one - relfective of teh change in the overall metagame to a certain extent. It may be just regional season - but there has certianly been a noitceably more consistent and national feel to the discussion of late, and certainly a more charged and competitive atmosphere.

Wonder if that will sort of fade out during the fall afetr the world cahmpionship is settled and we ease back into our lcoal mindstes.....

Jeff, on an unrelated and somewhat unnecessary note, the key to beating untargetable creatures is using spells which do not target. A 4/4 is pretty tough to get down with global -1/-1's, but a Wrath of God will do you golden no matter how many platinum angels he has. Then for green there's hurricane, since that platinum angel is flying, hurricane does -x/-x to all flyers. Chainer's and Diabolical Edict for black. Blue has targeted bounce cards, which you could use to bounce the cloak to target the angel, or counterspell the cloak next time he plays it. And Red has a bunch of non-targetted damage/artifact destruction. I used to play a similar combo, except with lightning greaves, which was 2 to play, 0 to equip. Haste + Shroud. It was great. I loved it. But I could see why other players would not. Especially on turn 2 :X.

Doc, I don't think Jeff's issue is that there ARE counters to the Platinum/shroud combo - its that such a degenerate combo exists in the metagame in the first place. Seriously - cards that say "You cannot lose/your opponent cannot win"? God - how game-y is that? Its just another reason I'm glad I got out of that game ten years ago.

Anyway - MtG rant over and back on topic: an environment that supports combos like the one that got Jeff basically mandates taht you toolbox your deck to a ceertian extent - adn that often is an NPE for players. Beleive me - Thrones has been there at tiems in the past. There was a whiel you HAD to urn atatchment control out of every deck, location control out of eveyr deck, sometimes cancel out of every deck - the card pool is getting bigger and we may soemday get back to that point. But I have to say - at the moment, there don't seem to be any problem cards of NPE combos that place restrictions on your deck building -except of course, that Fear sort of skews you towards the low end, swarm style of build.

Yep, Stag has it right. I know there are answers to the Angel+Cloak combo, but my issue is that it's effect is SO ridiculously powerful that its mere existence requires that decks have specific answers for it. Without them, your loss is guaranteed (not virtually guaranteed - actually guaranteed) when the combo shows up. That's just a design philosophy I can't support and that contributed to the NPE's I had when playing Magic. The day I see an effect like that in AGoT is the day I the game, at least on a competitive level.

I see. To me, this distinction between your two examples is one of degree rather than a qualitative one,** but I agree that the design philosophy of AGoT (compared to Magic) is to favor deck synergy and player interaction over card combinations. AGoT card design is very conservative (eg the existence of the draw cap, the built in limits like "once per phase" on many effects, the tight timing restrictions for many effects like only during Dominance or only during Marshaling, etc). I like both games. If you prefer long, complex games with many tactical decisions, then you definitely made the right choice to switch from Magic to AGoT. I like both styles, but I would just caution that in both games a competitive deck has to be built in reaction to its environment and needs to address the most prominent features of that environment.

** I'm trying to minimize the amount of Magic discussion in the thread, but as pointed already there are many answers within Magic to this combo. It's not that you need just one specific answer card (eg mass creature removal, artifact removal, discard, library manipulation, winning before turn 8). Also, Magic is a shorter game where it's practical to play best of three, so there is also the existence of the sideboard. I think the existence of the sideboard allows for Magic cards to require more specific answer cards than would be acceptable in AGoT. Also, you might have lost that one game, but it might still be the case that your deck is favored to win when played correctly. If you had removal that could hit the angel, you should just save one piece of it in the future for the angel so you can hit it before it gets cloaked rather than burning the removal early on a less threatening target. Here is a different example. When I was first starting out playing LCG, my Stark Bear Island deck could dominate my friend's Targaryen deck. Bear Island was just really tough for our low powered decks to beat unless they had attachments or location control. I understand Bear Island doesn't say "you can't lose" but for our early games it had a similar effect. We just had to adapt by playing some attachments/location control. I think the same thing with "attachments/location control" replaced by "artifact removal" applies to the Platinum Angel example.

I do think that the Magic conversation has run it's course, interesting and relevant to the topic though it was. And, you're right, it may just be a question of degree when comparing the Angel+Cloak to Lanni kneel, but there are a lot of degrees between the two in my opinion. I also understand the need to tailor your deck to the environment in AGoT. Without that need the whole "meta" concept would be pretty meaningless. I just find that in AGoT there's a lot more flexibility in how you decide to respond to most factors thanks to the conservative design approach of the game (an excellent point, I might add). I guess it boils down to the fact that I prefer the puzzle of trying to figure out how to beat a deck or deck-style (e.g. Lanni Kneel, Stark rush, etc.) as opposed to having to figure out how to beat a single card or simple combo (which usually boils down to figuring out where to slot certain cards into your deck rather than how to design your deck as a whole).

While I do enjoy the more thoughtful, strategic gameplay of AGoT, I also enjoy playing games that do have big, swingy cards. To address THAT need, I've ordered Warhammer: Invasion. It seems to have cards like that in it, and I'm hoping that FFG won't let it get out of hand like I think Magic has (for my tastes, at least).

So it sounds to me like either people here aren't having any NPE's in AGoT (or, at least, they hate the term), or they're at worst short term and rare and don't have any effect on their enjoyment of the game as a whole. Fear of Winter hasn't had thrown the environment into disarray as some feared it might, even when combined with the Stark siege agenda and epic events. Also, some people hate the term NPE.