[Setting] Fire & Blood

[KristoffStafk]

First, a friendly warning:
THIS GAME SETTING CONTAINS SPOILER FOR A CLASH OF KINGS AND A DANCE WITH DRAGONS


Fire & Blood is an alternate-timeline campaign setting for A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying.

The timeline diverges in 298 AL; the diverging event? Ser Jorah Mormont, through whatever words, convinces Daenerys Targaryen that she's better off not seeing the sacking of the Lhazareen villages.
This is no small turn of events: Daenerys never encounters Mirri Maz Duur, traditional Dothraki healing sees to Drogo's wounds and, most importantly, Rhaego is born strong, and healthy.

The main action of the game is set in 299 AL, during the War of the Five Kings:
Two hosts land in Westeros flying Targaryen banners. One is Drogo's khalasar, having rather cheaply acquired passage from Magister Illyrio in Pentos, and lands in the Stormlands. The other is the Golden Company, with Jon Cottington and Prince Aegon at its head, which quickly joins up with the strength of House Martell in Dorne.
The threat is obvious: Two armies, looking to pincer the forces of King Renly between them, and perhaps then take King's Landing.

I am still developing ideas for this alternate timeline, and have many more details in mind than what I have posted here. But before I got into all that, I wanted to see what interest there was in the community.

Who wants to hear (read) more?

[DaimosofRedstone]

Isn't that rather boring?
I mean a smash dunk victory spiced with a little curb-stomping ?
I do not see how Renly, who will loose some of his support of Targaryen supporters as well, could stand against an army of highly mobile archers and an elité mercenary company supported by elephants and Dorne.
Hell, Daenarys would even scope up some northern support for all its worth.

[KristoffStafk]

Isn't that rather boring?
I mean a smash dunk victory spiced with a little curb-stomping ?
I do not see how Renly, who will loose some of his support of Targaryen supporters as well, could stand against an army of highly mobile archers and an elité mercenary company supported by elephants and Dorne.
Hell, Daenarys would even scope up some northern support for all its worth.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that the Targ vs Renly battle was the only thing going. I doubt the Stark and Lannister armies currently engaged in the Riverlands would just sit there and watch a returned Targaryen presence waltz around the realm. The numbers of the two Targ armies and the armies of Westeros more or less equal out from the number crunching I've done.

And we have every reason to believe that Dany would not accept northern support, considering she blames the Starks just as much as the Baratheons and the Lannister for her family's loss of the Iron Throne.

So the question for the Player House is: Where do you side, and why?

[DaimosofRedstone]

So the basic assumption is that the Westerosi armies join forces, or that their is a 4-way going on?

[KristoffStafk]

So the basic assumption is that the Westerosi armies join forces, or that their is a 4-way going on?

That's actually part of what I hadn't fully figured out yet.

So much of the War of Five Kings was running on passion:
Robb Stark's fury over his father's death.
Lannister passion for protecting family.
Stannis's resentment at being sent to Dragonstone, in addition to what is "lawful."
Renly's boy-like desire to play king.
And Balon's seizing an opportunity to vent his long-simmering bitterness against the North and West.

Then this curve ball that no one saw coming lands on the East Coast, and shakes things up completely.
Do these people put aside their differences in the face of a Targaryen army mostly peopled by barbarians?

If so, how long does the truce hold?

Do they come together as one united front to confront the onslaught, or do they surround it individually, each one pecking at the larger host?

Who declares for Dany, and how long do they keep their allegiance once they see the savage brutality witch witch the Dothraki wage war?

I don't have much of a timeline worked out post-landing, so these are some of the questions I'm looking for input on.
Also, the fate of Mirri Maz Duur is not the only point of difference, just the most major.

[DaimosofRedstone]

I honestly cannot see any side comprising at this point, so most likely danny will eat them up one after the other.

[Mrjamespj]

I really like your idea it seems interesting.

I think everyone might kind of just let them destroy Renly first as he is a big threat with so many men and maybe the Targaryens will weaken their own forces through battle, I imagine Stannis might be the only one who would even think about helping Renly, he wants the crown sure, but I doubt he would just let his brother be destroyed by the Targs at this point, as their own problems don't happen for a bit yet.

The North and Westerlands, forget it, they'd probably be at each others throats no matter what, but I can imagine the Lannisters trying to worm their way in to some kind of alliance with the Targaryens, but how that would involve them keeping the throne or giving it up (highly unlikely), I don't know.

As for the others, I'll have to have a bit more of a think, but this idea certainly sounds cool and with some good detailed planning I think it would be awesome.

[Azai]

What is the relationship of Dany and Aegon? Are they working together? Or are they just suddenly finding out about each other?

[DaimosofRedstone]

My problems stems from the fact that Mr. Martin wrote it so, that at this point it is almost impossible that any faction would help the other:
- The North is in Rebellion and has crowned its own king. This will be a major beaf with anyone aiming for the Throne of the Seven Kingdoms since he/she would have to settle for a throne of six kingdoms. They are also not so clear on the Baratheon/Lannister divide. While i see NO chance of them making up with the Lannisters i am still quite sure tha Stannis is just as unviable as a partner: Stannis is psychologically unable to accept anything less than 'his due', e.g. the Throne of SEVEN Kingdoms.
Renly seems the most likely to compromise but than he also has the largest army and the least common sense.
As for the Targaryens: The Starks were one of THE driving powers behind the rebellion. An alliance seems unlikely at best even before the fact that a secession of the North would be the likely cost of this alliance.

- The Lannisters would be most flexible from their moral outlook but at the same time are severly hampered by the fact that they own the throne and won't like to give it up. At the same time every other faction has a more or less severe case for murderous hatred against them: Killing of close Kin (the Targaryen family, Ned Stark, Robert Barateon, etc.)

- The Targaryen are faced with house who betrayed them: Baratheon, Lannister and Stark. Should Renly somehow 'disappear' Highgarden might remember its old loyalties, but till then...

-And the Baratheons are fighting for the Throne, not for a place on the table.

SO there is no faction whose goals uncomprised would allow for an alliance. The most likely would be one between the North and the Targaryens, but then the question remains why the Targaryens would loose half their realm if they have all the armies they need and only disorganized opposition?!
And the Westerosi are unlikely and quite frankly unable to unite for as long as their leaders remain who they are. If any of the major players were to be killed, like in the Books, new alliances will from, surely, but till then...

[Kajani]

I would agree to the most things, but I think there is one fact You hasn't noticed. Wasn't Stannis even 15 years later a bit unhappy with the decision of rebellion against the regular ruler? It MIGHT be, that if he face one or even two promissing Targaryen which perhaps offer him the Stormlands... In the end, they have a legal claim, and that mean something for him.

[Gurkhal]

First, a friendly warning:
THIS GAME SETTING CONTAINS SPOILER FOR A CLASH OF KINGS AND A DANCE WITH DRAGONS


Fire & Blood is an alternate-timeline campaign setting for A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying.

The timeline diverges in 298 AL; the diverging event? Ser Jorah Mormont, through whatever words, convinces Daenerys Targaryen that she's better off not seeing the sacking of the Lhazareen villages.
This is no small turn of events: Daenerys never encounters Mirri Maz Duur, traditional Dothraki healing sees to Drogo's wounds and, most importantly, Rhaego is born strong, and healthy.

Alright so I presume that Viserys would still be killed.

The main action of the game is set in 299 AL, during the War of the Five Kings:
Two hosts land in Westeros flying Targaryen banners. One is Drogo's khalasar, having rather cheaply acquired passage from Magister Illyrio in Pentos, and lands in the Stormlands. The other is the Golden Company, with Jon Cottington and Prince Aegon at its head, which quickly joins up with the strength of House Martell in Dorne.

Are the Targaryens fighting as one force or against each other? Because it seems to me that Dorne will be pretty pissed their contract to marry into the Targaryen family again was passed over in favor of a hairy savage from Essos. Likewise both of the Targaryens, Daenerys and Aegon would have some impressive sense of self-entitlement on this issue, and since Daenerys is both married away to the Khal and so devoted to him it won't be possible for them to simply marry together with each other.

The threat is obvious: Two armies, looking to pincer the forces of King Renly between them, and perhaps then take King's Landing.

Yes, the situations looks very much like it would favor the Targaryens.

I am still developing ideas for this alternate timeline, and have many more details in mind than what I have posted here. But before I got into all that, I wanted to see what interest there was in the community.

There's always interest with me in looking at what settings that other people have came up with. I have some questions however.

1. What's the status internally in Team Targaryen? Because if they are united it will take some serious PC action to stop them even when they don't have any dragons.

2. Are the rest of the realm divided in the War of Five Kings as in the books?

3. What's the situation in pro- and anti-Targaryen Houses in Westeros in this setting? Mostly interested in the general trend of the lesser Houses as we already know that Stark, Tully, Arryn, Baratheon and Lannister would be anti-Targaryen, Dorne pro-Targaryen, Greyjoy indifferent and I think the Tyrells would be as self-serving as usual.

Who wants to hear (read) more?

I'd love to hear mere.

[KristoffStafk]

Okay, to answer questions posed:

Dany, Aegon, and Dorne: They do know of each other, but not well, and they are working "together." However, one of the ideas that I had is that, sooner or later, their alliance will fall apart. Why? Because Dany has been taught for so long that Westeros is "her" realm (not to mention that I don't see Drogo submitting to ANYONE), but Aegon has the better claim (being the grandson of the former king, in the law of every land but Dorne, he comes before Dany).
As for Dorne, yeah, they are kind of ticked that Dany married some foreign barbarian, but considering that the initial agreement was to marry Arianne to Viserys (who is still dead), and Dany had no knowledge of the agreement, Prince Doran is willing to deal. And the deal is to marry Arianne to Aegon instead, thus renewing the ties between Targaryen and Martell, and giving Dorne motivation for supporting Aegon's claim.

Because if they are united it will take some serious PC action to stop them even when they don't have any dragons.

I'm not assuming the PCs will WANT to stop them. And honestly, that decision would do a lot to shape the future of the campaign. For example, if the PCs DO decide to oppose the Targaryens, then the above mentioned split between Dany and Aegon would happen sooner, to help even the odds. If, on the other hand, the PCs declare for the Targaryens, and they win, then the split will happen after the conquest.

Lesser Houses:
This largely depends on the Region, in my mind.
I imagine the Dornish minor houses falling into line behind the Targaryens, who always treated them fairly well (at least since they married into the realm).
Likewise, I see all the Northmen siding against them, both out of loyalty to the King in the North, but also due to Dany's professed hatred of the Starks (which I can't imagine her being quiet about).
The Riverlands are in sore shape, but committed to Robb's cause.
The Eyrie is going to sit there, Lysa's real good at that.
I also don't see the Ironborn doing much at the beginning... this kind of throws Balon's plans out of whack, and I don't see his lords deserting him. However, perhaps the Crow's Eye might hear of what's going down, and decide it's time to come home...
The real wild cards here are the minor houses of the Westerlands and the Reach.


This wasn't a question, but I want to address it anyway:

SO there is no faction whose goals uncomprised would allow for an alliance.

This is true. However, you seem to be of the opinion that those factions would rather face unstoppable odds and inevitable death rather than compromise and stand a chance at survival. I disagree.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Well, there would first be a recognition of the odds as being unstoppable. You might not see that as long as Danny's not able to simply burn everything with Dragons (which she does not have, since Mirri Maz Duur was essential to that).
So most likely every one of the other pretenders will try to either kill of the others fast to grap their troops and then squash the horselords.
Which basically means business as usual.

[KristoffStafk]

So most likely every one of the other pretenders will try to either kill of the others fast to grap their troops and then squash the horselords.

I would like to suggest that if any one of the Kings were capable of killing any of the others "fast," they would have done so in the cannon timeline. They can't, and they know it. I'll remind you that the only King directly killed by one of his opponents was Renly, and there was magic involved there.

Speaking of which, I'm also thinking about Melisandre in this setting.

I am considering another point of divergence where she decides that Rhaego is the Prince that was Promised, and she comes to Dany instead... this is partly to remove a part of Stannis' story that I'm not sure how to work with... and to give an opportunity to hatch the Dragons later, cause I love 'em.

[Gurkhal]

So most likely every one of the other pretenders will try to either kill of the others fast to grap their troops and then squash the horselords.

I would like to suggest that if any one of the Kings were capable of killing any of the others "fast," they would have done so in the cannon timeline. They can't, and they know it. I'll remind you that the only King directly killed by one of his opponents was Renly, and there was magic involved there.

Speaking of which, I'm also thinking about Melisandre in this setting.

I am considering another point of divergence where she decides that Rhaego is the Prince that was Promised, and she comes to Dany instead... this is partly to remove a part of Stannis' story that I'm not sure how to work with... and to give an opportunity to hatch the Dragons later, cause I love 'em.

1. Its true about the kings and their inability to kill each other, which will no doubt work in the Targaryens favor since their enemies will remain divided.

2. Giving Melisandre to Daenerys will make two things come true I think. One is that Team Targaryen will have another very potent member against their divided enemies and also take Stannis out of the race. Stannis may try, and will probably try, but in the end he will die without a chance to do anything. I would recommend against it due to these reasons. And if Daenerys gets dragons as well its simply good-bye for everyone, unless someone kills those overgrown reptiles very fast.

I have a small question in addition to this. How do you envision that the Targaryens can be stopped by the Five Kings? Because the only ones who can hope to make some form of alliance will be Tywin (officially Joffrey but we know who calls the shots) and Renly, and even then they will be fighting a two front war with both the Targaryens and Robb Stark and may also suffer defections from their ranks to the dragons.

You wrote that there would be tensions between the two Targaryen candidates which is both good and necessary. Then again I don't know how you envision that the war will go. Are we talking a War of Six Kings and One Queen or first a Targaryen reconquest followed by a second Dance of the Dragons?

I know it will depend on what the characters do but I suspect you have some idea for the most likely scenarios.

[KristoffStafk]

2. Giving Melisandre to Daenerys will make two things come true I think. One is that Team Targaryen will have another very potent member against their divided enemies and also take Stannis out of the race. Stannis may try, and will probably try, but in the end he will die without a chance to do anything. I would recommend against it due to these reasons. And if Daenerys gets dragons as well its simply good-bye for everyone, unless someone kills those overgrown reptiles very fast.

I'm not sure why everyone thinks of the dragons as game-enders almost from the moment they're hatched. It takes them how long to grow to any size capable of endangering a child? A year? More? Yes, there's the roasting of the Undying, but that really seems an aberration rather than the norm.
That being said, I wouldn't even consider hatching the dragons until a first or second Targaryen victory (even in the best case scenario against them, they're going to have at least one), that being the taking of Storm's End. This puts Edric Storm in their hands, and maybe Mel can convince Dany to let her sacrifice him to "Wake the stone dragons," in this case referring to her eggs. The normally soft-hearted Dany may be persuaded by the argument that this boy is the son of the man who killed her brother and toppled her family's dynasty.
Further than that, without Melisadre, Stannis has two high-councilors (Cressen and Ser Davos) urging him to make common cause with the Starks. Without the Red Woman's constant assurance of "it all belongs to you, My King" might he bend to the wisdom in that? He's cocky and unmoving when he's sure he's got an ace up his sleeve... what if he doesn't? Stannis his hard, but he's not stupid.

That said, I'm not decided on this course of action yet, so every angle is worth thought.

I have a small question in addition to this. How do you envision that the Targaryens can be stopped by the Five Kings? Because the only ones who can hope to make some form of alliance will be Tywin (officially Joffrey but we know who calls the shots) and Renly, and even then they will be fighting a two front war with both the Targaryens and Robb Stark and may also suffer defections from their ranks to the dragons.

Renly has a huge host assembled, especially if he doesn't have the siege of Storm's End to contend with (with no Melisandre helping Stannis, I don't see him thinking he can pull that one off). While that host is in danger of a pincer attack from the two Targ armies, that would also leave that northern Targ army open to a rear attack from either Tywin's Host, or Robb's army.
Or potentially both. Now, I know it seems very unlikely that the Lannis and Starks would bury the hatchet at this point, but Tywin is no fool. If a new player of this caliber suddenly lands on the table, I can see him saying to his daughter, "You damn well better do everything you can to make peace with the Starks right quick. Give them the girl(s), the bones, the sword, anything they want short of your head. If we want the realm to survive at all, we need all the swords we can get."
And I really don't see the Starks suffering desertion to the Targaryen side. Their primary motivation is "justice for Ned." Are the Targs going to give them that? Dany blames Eddard Stark as much as Tywin and Robert for her family's plight. She'll treat all loyal to those houses as threats, and that alone may bring them together somewhat.

You wrote that there would be tensions between the two Targaryen candidates which is both good and necessary. Then again I don't know how you envision that the war will go. Are we talking a War of Six Kings and One Queen or first a Targaryen reconquest followed by a second Dance of the Dragons?

I think, the more I talk about this, the more I see it as: So this is the War of Five Kings, and we're all fighting and... oh, now there's a huge-ass invasion comprised mostly of foreign barbarians representing the dynasty that we got rid of 15 years ago... um... maybe our fight doesn't mean so much right now. We can bicker when it's done.

I think we shouldn't underestimate the ability of an outside threat to unite forces that might normally be at each other's throats (think Churchill and Stalin).

I think the idea of a second conquest followed by a second Dance is certainly one of the viable forms of this timeline, and one that I find somewhat attractive, but certainly not the only one.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Further than that, without Melisadre, Stannis has two high-councilors (Cressen and Ser Davos) urging him to make common cause with the Starks. Without the Red Woman's constant assurance of "it all belongs to you, My King" might he bend to the wisdom in that? He's cocky and unmoving when he's sure he's got an ace up his sleeve... what if he doesn't? Stannis his hard, but he's not stupid.

This is not Melisandre at work.
Stannis is universally acknowledged as the (l)awful stupid type.
He does not rebel because he wants the throne.
He does because that is the way it should be and it is both his right but also his DUTY to ascend to the throne.
This unyielding letters of the law approach is what defines Stannis.
Which is the reason why you won't see him making common cause with the Starks (seperatist) or the Lannisters (inbred traitors).
I do not know how he stands to a 'legitimatly stolen throne' since the Baratheons claim was always a little weak, but i doubt that he would even budge from his 'right' in face of the Targaryens.


As for Dragons:
They are gameenders for two reason.
1. Sooner or later they WILL be full-grown.
2. Psychology. Anybody with dragons will appear as the most legitime heir in a Kingdom that got used to being ruled by Dragon Lords.

As for the 'fast killing', IIRC the culling of kings happens quite fast in quite a small time frame.
First Renly by shadows, then Rob by betrayal, then Joffrey by Poison.
Arguable their many more ways to get to one or more pretenders quite quickly if the story demands it.


@Uniting:
That is precisly the point.
The war of the kings at this point has degenerated into something far worse than pretensions to the throne.
The Starks won't settle for anything less than Ice, Ned Starks Bones and Joffreys on top.
The Lannisters finally managed to grab the throne and are unlikely to let go.
Stannis is lawful stupid.
The only one who is in it for the fun is Renly and he is incompatible with the Stannis for obvious reasons, same goes for the Lannisters. The only party he could conceivable make common cause with are the starks (the North for the Starks, the rest for Renly) but in the books he was quite averse to settling for anything less than the whole pie.

[KristoffStafk]

This is not Melisandre at work.

I must disagree to a certain extent.
At the beginning of Clash of Kings with Cressen (I think) is suggesting alliance, it's not Stannis who tells him to get lost, it's Selyse, acting as Melisandre's mouthpiece.

Stannis is universally acknowledged as the (l)awful stupid type.
He does not rebel because he wants the throne.
He does because that is the way it should be and it is both his right but also his DUTY to ascend to the throne.
This unyielding letters of the law approach is what defines Stannis.
Which is the reason why you won't see him making common cause with the Starks (seperatist) or the Lannisters (inbred traitors).
I do not know how he stands to a 'legitimatly stolen throne' since the Baratheons claim was always a little weak, but i doubt that he would even budge from his 'right' in face of the Targaryens.

The phrase that sticks in my mind that was used to describe Stannis is "just beyond reason." You imply that you think that means he'll plunge headlong into oblivion instead of compromise. I disagree.

As for Dragons:
They are gameenders for two reason.
1. Sooner or later they WILL be full-grown.
2. Psychology. Anybody with dragons will appear as the most legitime heir in a Kingdom that got used to being ruled by Dragon Lords.

1. Which, as I mentioned, is a process of months if not years. That doesn't scare me. Besides, even dragons are not immortal. It's not like we don't have stories from days gone past of them being killed.
2. I hope you're not suggesting that if Aerys the Mad had dragons, people would have just shrugged and said "Well, he's got dragons, so he's the king." I'm sorry, but I don't find any evidence to suggest that people in Westeros will bend the knee without question or battle to anyone who's got dragons hanging around.

As for the 'fast killing', IIRC the culling of kings happens quite fast in quite a small time frame.
First Renly by shadows, then Rob by betrayal, then Joffrey by Poison.
Arguable their many more ways to get to one or more pretenders quite quickly if the story demands it.

Exactly. None of the kings are actually killed by their enemies armies. The timing of these events is such that the Red Wedding has yet to take place, and with this threat on the table, it's likely that it wouldn't happen.
As for Joffrey's poison, the same might be said. Is it a good idea to poison a king when you've got a horde of barbarian invaders on the doorstep?

in the books he was quite averse to settling for anything less than the whole pie.

In the books, he didn't have a Targaryen invasion to contend with.
I think that might change things.

Finally, it seems that you and I have very different ideas about who these characters are, and how they react to things. I might even go so far as to call our differences of opinion "irreconcilable."
Given that you have made it abundantly clear that you think this is a terrible idea (by objecting to almost every idea I've put forth), I'm perfectly happy just assuming that you will continue to object.
If future posts that you might make would just be filled with more of the same, I'd politely ask you not to make them.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Lets turn this around:
What do we agree on?

Is Melisandre the only reason that Stannis is a force to be reckoned with?
I think yes and i also think that is where we agree.

I think we also agree that there is zero chance of a Stark-Lannister alliance.

Did we agree on aynthing else?
Because i think if we find the bits that are universally agreed on it is easier to model a believable scenario.
Kinda like these riddles where you have to find out who drives what car by getting hints like 'Robert would never drive a red car'.

[KristoffStafk]

Is Melisandre the only reason that Stannis is a force to be reckoned with?
I think yes and i also think that is where we agree.

Yes, without Melisandre, all Stannis has is about 5,000 men, at best an augmentation to someone else's forces.
And I'm okay with that.

I think we also agree that there is zero chance of a Stark-Lannister alliance.

Actually, I do disagree on this. As I stated previously, I think Tywin (who we do agree is the real power) might be willing to make huge concessions to the Starks for the sake of uniting against a common threat. Or, at the very least, calling a cease to their own hostilities until it's safe to continue them. Will Robb object? Of course, but in the face of the kind of opposition they'd be facing, how long can he object?

Maybe the best bet is uniting Tywin's host and Robb's host as sub-armies under Renly's much more massive host.
No one would like it, but it might keep the Lannisters and the Starks off of each other's throats long enough to try to see to the threat of two Targaryen armies.
Note that I am not suggesting that they acknowledge him as King. I know Renly won't like that either, but here it goes...
Renly: I won't help you fight the Dothraki until you bend the knee.
Robb: No.
Tywin: No. And the longer you keep up this stubbornness, the closer the Dothraki get to killing us all.
A staring contest then begins. Renly does not win, and concedes rather than being trapped between two Targaryen armies.

I guess my main point is that every character's unwillingness to bend or budge is influenced, sometimes created, by the nature of the situation they found themselves in. By changing the situation as drastically as this, I find a shift in attitudes appropriate, and believable.

[DaimosofRedstone]

I do not if they are about a completly change in objective.
I would find it much more believable if Robb would simply dig in behind the Trident or even leave and prepare to defend the North.
This thing started as a Blood Feud against Joffrey Baratheon/Lannister and given that Rob is young and more idealistic than pragmatic i do not see this happening.
Especially since most of his bannermen followed him explicitly because of this blood feud raison d'etre.
The same goes for Renly if he bends the knee or even appears to:
He got the support he has because those people wanted HIM on the Throne. If he is just funneling them to somebody else, well, they can do that themselves just as well.

There is also the problem with the oft-cited un-offical motto of the Game of Thrones:
"If you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die!"
And there is no second place.

[KristoffStafk]

I do not if they are about a completly change in objective.

I'm not suggesting anyone change their objective. I'm suggesting they put off objectives to deal with a more imminent threat to survival.

I would find it much more believable if Robb would simply dig in behind the Trident or even leave and prepare to defend the North.

That is actually a great idea that I am unsure why I didn't consider.

This thing started as a Blood Feud against Joffrey Baratheon/Lannister and given that Rob is young and more idealistic than pragmatic i do not see this happening.

I don't see him sacrificing the realm to suit his vendetta.

The same goes for Renly if he bends the knee or even appears to:

Which is why I never suggested that he should. Making peace to fight in war is not bending the knee.

There is also the problem with the oft-cited un-offical motto of the Game of Thrones:
"If you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die!"
And there is no second place.

A point of view espoused by very few characters.

[muggie2]

Looking at the scenario, I can see some problems which can be solved. To some degree, at least.
First: Stark vs Lannister. This one is NOT going away. It can, however, be postponed. Tywin Lannister would be pragmatic enough to buy off the Starks by giving in to some of their demands. Ice (if still intact), return of the bones, the one Stark girl they have. The Kingdom of the North acknowledged. Fine, this can be revisited if the invaders are defeated. Joffrey would be a no go, but that can be a matter for the future. Honest!
The Starks would take it, if only to allow them to go back and repel the invading Ironmen, and save their lands.
So, you lose the Starks, but gain a secure back - the Starks will be busy smacking down the Ironmen, and the rest can concentrate on the *real* threat.

[DaimosofRedstone]

One could also turn that on its head.
299 AL is a rather long year full of events.
Including a massive die-off of pretenders that Daenarys arrival is unlikely to forestall (why keep from killing your rivals if that could mean inheriting their armies?).
Than you would see an exhausted Lannister alliance with a lot of unreliable allies. First and Foremost the Roses who are not exactly anti-Targaryen. Maybe they just wed Margaery to the Targaryen and support his drive for the throne.
Then Daenarys Stormborn would probably steamroll the Stormlands towards the Riverlands and most likely make short work of any Lannister power left.
At the same time though, her bid for Iron Throne would have most likely ended before it begun:
Her nephew(?) has the better part of the (unscathed) power of Westeros behind him, the rest is pretty much desolation by now, and she has a host of riding barbarians which will damage her reputation severly.
She will indeed be 'a horselords whore', while Prince Aegon behaves as expected, brings exiles and not barbarians and looks all around like a much better choice.
He would probably attract Selmy as well.

IF Danny would than want to continue the fight all her options are peculiar:
Dorne is unlikely to rise for her. They want a Targaryen but have no preference.
The Roses are now in-laws and won't betray their tame Targaryen.
The Lannister are the mortal enemies of the Targaryens (after all their betrayal, much more than the rebellion of the Starks and Baratheons that was triggered by their sons trying to keep their skin intact) doomed them. And will probably doom the Lannisters now. They have nothing to expect from the targaryens and can only hope they do not pay their debts as fully as Lannisters do.
The Tullys as well as the Starks have more or less ceased to exist as powerful factions, just as, to be honest, the North and the Riverlands have ceased to exist as important or even particular viable parts of the Realm.
Littlefinger might join the Power of the Eyrie to Dannys, if that is his game or even only serves it, but then we do not even know what his play is.

So it might as well be that Danny has to be contend to be a khaleesi and no queen.

[Zorbeltuss]

I see it as likely that Dany and Aegon cooperates. Consider that you have Varys and Illyrio pulling strings for both of them.