Choosing Rank

It seems choosing a higher rank is better (strictly from "what you get")

For some characters (Dragon herald) I can totally see why I might pick a low Rank (playing a street profit instead of an aristocrat has appeal)

For other playbooks it's less obvious; why play a Rank 3 Outlaw Prince over a rank 2? Both are high ranks, so there doesn't seem to be an incentive to pick 3 over 2, and 2 has more fun hooks built into the backstory.

Only think I can think of is the higher your rank, the more people who have you in the crosshairs (you are between them and the crown).

Main mechanical issue is fortunes.

Higher rank usually equals higher amount of holdings (or whatever).
More holdings is usually the main benefit of higher rank, too.

So, when you roll fortunes, you really have three options:
- All profit
- Most profit, one want
- All want

Right? I don't have the book right in front of me but I'm pretty sure that's the breakdown.

So, it's a risk reward tradeoff.
High rank gets more profit on a success, but way more issues on a fail.
Low rank gets less profit, but very little issues on a fail.

When you factor in that you'll fail this roll 50% of the time, it can be pretty risky...
- Alex

The revised text says:

Choose your rank freely. The ranks aren’t balanced against each other, because every rank is equally fun to play. If you want to play the highest rank, you should. If you want to play a lower rank, you should.

-Vincent

@lumpley: thanks!

@Antisinecurist: I overlooked the downside of holdings and that is exactly what I was looking for (mechanically). With power comes more obligations, more things vying for your attention.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that mechanical balance, personally. I've made no effort whatsoever to make sure that it holds.

-Vincent

No, I didn't think so, but from a casual perspective that's the quickest explanation of downsides VS upsides of various ranks, barring fictional concerns.

- A

I think your best bet is to balance them as MC. The player with the highest rank should also court the most powerful enemies; kings rival kings, and could care less about the individual actions of a peasant or even landowner.

Not looking for balance, more of 'trade off', and having lots of "wants" on a failed roll is perfect (and drives the story!).

While influence or power comes with obligations, the cost is rarely close to the payoff.

The cost can be pretty high in terms of setting. A peasant deals with bandits and fellow peasants, new laws, new taxes, and other such threats. A landowner deals with similar problems, the economic growth of their holdings, larger taxes, bandit occupation, civil unrest of the peasantry, and other laws. Nobles deal with political backstabbing and potential war with fellow nobles, the complaints of peasantry and other sworn people, and the actions or declarations of their king.

Each groups threats increase in scale as their rank increases. These threats should pose about an equal problem for them as the threats of a lower ranking person should pose in kind (so a peasant dealing with the local bandit should be about on par a challenge with a prince dealing with rival claimants; a noble warring with a noble should be about on par with a king warring with another nation).

It's also seriously fun to have a mix of social castes at the same table, in any game. Mechanically, they're all good at what they do. It's more about what the player thinks is interesting.

@Scrape: Yeah, I wasn't arguing otherwise. Wasn't arguing no one would pick a lower caste, or asking for any enforced game balance. Was just curious if there was any mechanical or narrative trade offs between the more granular Rank decisions that I might have missed, and there are (but as Vincent pointed out, I shouldn't expect them to be 'even' or balanced).

@Decivre: Outside of a game the peasant or serf also has to deal with things like 'not starving to death'. Life expectancy of a nobleman was a bit higher than that of a serf. Wasn't trying to say power didn't or shouldn't come with a cost.

Within a game I can't imagine life would be super pleasant for the rank 7 Dragon Herald hanging out with the noblemen either, his lack of titles and status is going to make him a serious outsider (and that sounds like fun to play).

Antisinecurist summed it up perfectly for me. With Rank comes more holdings, and that comes with more obligations to juggle.

Thanks all!

What would be cool would be player or mc moves related to Rank. "Present a problem above or below their Rank" or something like that.

That brings up a good question; is Rank something that exists 'within' the fiction?  I was more presuming with three different lineage conventions no one can really agree on who is what rank.

I might think I'm the proper heir(or rather my wife is) because I'm old Old Blood and my wife is the eldest daughter of the reigning queen, but my nephew Prince So-and-So thinks I'm nuts (he recognizes Empire of Eagles linage system, and he's my wife's younger sister's eldest son).

I imagine that within each 'faction,' rank must be very important, at least to high-ranking clans or houses or whatever. So like, an Old Blood knows where they stand among the other nobles, especially those who follow the way of Old Blood. Then they meet someone who follows a different system and each of them thinks the other is 'beneath' them.

There's some implied war for the crown stuff, right? So lineage and primacy are probably a Big Deal in the fiction. Each table may vary, I guess.

For other playbooks it's less obvious; why play a Rank 3 Outlaw Prince over a rank 2? Both are high ranks, so there doesn't seem to be an incentive to pick 3 over 2, and 2 has more fun hooks built into the backstory.

Well if you like the general playbook but don't want to be say a Targaryen equivalent, I can see why someone might go with rank 3. That said the character concept I've come up for that particular playbook would be rank 3, because it fits the bits of fluff I've thought up.