Significant Heirs

[HelgiBergmann]

On page 103 of the core book, it says that

Influence does not limit the number of children a house can have (otherwise House Frey would have an Influence of several hundred!) but rather how many heirs with a significant Status you have.

The problem we're having is that when you have a house with 35 Influence, invested into a first-born son (20) and a daughter (10), when the old lord dies, the house loses Influence (from the last heir in line, 10 in this case). This can mean some strange things, such as a Lord having a son, and the son assuming the head of house role when the Lord dies, but the house's Influence drops so much that the son, according to the rules on maximum status, loses his lordship and becomes a landed knight. This is absurd, surely?

Also, an example from my game, the house had a lord (NC) and two heirs, male (PC) and female (PC). The lord was killed, so the house loses Influence, and if the male heir is killed, or sent to the wall, the family dies out, because there are no male heirs, right? This means that a house can very easily be wiped out.

My solution was to say that you can have more children of the Lord, and the heir can have 2-3 children, but these do not count as "significant" heirs. So if you have a lord who dies, his only significant heir is his only son, but that son may have 2-3 children, they however are maybe infants, and there unfit to rule, and therefore they would be next in line as heirs, but they would not be significant, and therefore would have lower status.

Does this make sense? How should we deal with this?

[coldwind]

You don't lose the influence invested, it just becomes un-invested.

So a lord with influence 34 with an heir (20) and second son (10) and a third son (no investment - max status 2) dies. Heir moves into "lord" slot, his brother (second son) moves into heir slot (20), third son rises into "second son" slot (10 - min Status 3 now).
Again, tragedy, new heir dies, "third" son becomes heir (20), extra 10 becomes free. House still at 34 influence.

[Lord Ben]

I suggest a liberal use of rule 0 when it comes to that influence rules there. The rules are a good guide but don't let it be a detriment to your game if they don't fit exactly.

I find it odd you can't get your wife preggers without boosting Influence..

[Zorbeltuss]

The Head of House dying causing a loss of influence wouldn't necessarily be implausible, just don't tie it into the influence cost of heir holdings the way RAW dictates. Say you have an influence 29 house, heir costs 20, if the lord dies, then house has influence 9. Which is silly.

My interpretation is that the influence holdings determines which of the Lord's Children can purchase status of 3 or higher. It doesn't matter if he has two or twenty, if the House has 30 influence, only the first two (if one is a boy, at least) gets status 3.

If one of the first two dies, then the next in the line (or the next to be born) can purchase status 3.

[Carriker]

Zorbeltuss has the right of it. Those Influence points are invested in imaginary "slots" that people fill, not actually invested in the people themselves.

[HelgiBergmann]

Zorbeltuss has the right of it. Those Influence points are invested in imaginary "slots" that people fill, not actually invested in the people themselves.

Carriker, thank you for your reply, you are a gentleman and a scholar. As is Zorbeltuss, and the rest of you.

What had confused me was this bit from the FAQ:

Q) If the firstborn son of a lord dies, and a player plays the second in line, now next in line to inherit, does the new heir have to invest influence to become the new heir?

A) No. The initial investment for the heir holds as does each investment for other heirs in line. You lose the Influence invested for the last heir in line. For example, say player 1 invested 20 Influence to become the heir. Player 2 invests 10 to become next in line. Player 3 invests 5 to become third in line. Player 1’s character dies. Player 2 automatically shifts up to 1’s slot and Player 3 shifts up into 2’s slot. The last slot and the 5 Influence invested are lost.

I had always understood this as meaning that if you lost an heir you lost the Influence. But I like the way you're saying it works a lot more.

We had been running it the other way, in fact we had it so that your Lord character couldn't have any children until he had enough free Influence to invest in them. But we're probably retarded anyway.