Reading between the lines is up to the viewer, and in this case telltale is telling a story based on books that people may or may not have read, and they shouldn't assume people would know that there are scenes or battles not mentioned, which leaves some people asking questions as to what happened.
It has no relevance to what I said. I only used the GoT books as an example, as what I said applies to plenty of things. Telltale telling a story based on the books, where information presented may not always be correct and scenes are skipped out on, does not matter. The Forresters aren't present in the books either, except for one brief mention, I believe.
So I don't know why you mention 'and in this case telltale is telling a story based on books that people may or may not have read, and they shouldn't assume people would know that there are scenes or battles not mentioned'. It's not like Telltale wrote the ending scene of episode 5 and expected you to know the answer because of the books, because it was never covered.
Anyway, point being: for the most part, all books, tv shows, movies and games can't show 'everything' that happens. There are various reasons: budget, time, some things are better left out to make the story better, sometimes things may be left unclear for readers to guess or for them to kind of make their own ending or whatever (this last point is something I've personally used myself two times for varying reasons). Sometimes, it's also a case of the readers being trusted and respected when it comes to information not being shown. You know, it being trusted they can come up with their own explanation? There's a saying among writers, 'respect your readers'.
I know what you mean, and I'm not saying your wrong, yes, there are things you need to read between the lines with, is this one of them? Per… morehaps. Yes, some scenes and plots are cut due to time constraints or necessary to the main story. Maybe they did scout and plan, that's up to your own interpretation. For me, and many others, it feels like the whole scene was rushed even after knowing the ambush plan, you know what I mean?. But I do see your point on the natural reactions to a situation like that, maybe they scouted and was all clear you know, and they had their family moment. Reading between the lines is up to the viewer, and in this case telltale is telling a story based on books that people may or may not have read, and they shouldn't assume people would know that there are scenes or battles not mentioned, which leaves some people asking questions as to what happened. and yes the answers are not present yet, maybe there's an explanation.
Ok man calm down, im saying that there should have been a scene dedicated to scouting or having a plan to the whole ambush scene. Ok?. When I was playing the game, i was frustrated to as why there was no scene, plan or scouting to the situation at hand, because that's what I would of done, and many others like myself. Does that make sense? It's my own opinion and what I would've done, and the logical thing to do in a situation like that.
And you also edited what you originally said so no one else can see it .
I don't understand why you say:
Reading between the lines is up to the viewer, and in this case telltale is telling a story based on b… moreooks that people may or may not have read, and they shouldn't assume people would know that there are scenes or battles not mentioned, which leaves some people asking questions as to what happened.
It has no relevance to what I said. I only used the GoT books as an example, as what I said applies to plenty of things. Telltale telling a story based on the books, where information presented may not always be correct and scenes are skipped out on, does not matter. The Forresters aren't present in the books either, except for one brief mention, I believe.
So I don't know why you mention 'and in this case telltale is telling a story based on books that people may or may not have read, and they shouldn't assume people would know that there are scenes or battles not mentioned'. It's not like Telltale … [view original content]
I edited what. . . ? I always add/remove things or tweak grammar, or make adjustments to clarify. I don't use MS Word to proof read or anything. I don't read over what I type before hitting the post button, but I didn't edit out anything bad to my knowledge. So, I'm not sure where that's coming from, though sure, I do sometimes think better of posting something and edit it. This wasn't one of those times.
And I am actually quite calm. I'm not having a go at you. You saying you think they should have that scene in is fine. All I did was say I didn't understand why you said what you did and explain that they can't show everything, while explaining possible reasons for it. That's all. I'm sorry if you felt I was having a go at you.
I also admit that I'm tired of everything, so it's very possible that I've not said things in the best way, but again, it wasn't my intent to come across badly.
Edit: Like just now, I edited this post to change 'I always add things or tweak grammar' to 'I always add/remove things or tweak grammar'.
Edit 2: The only antagonistic thing I've said as well is in my second post here, with 'why do i bother?', prompted by you still saying bad writing instead of thinking about what I said, which is what you did in your second reply to me. Therefore, I have no issue with your second reply except I don't understand why you said what you did.
Edit 3: Actually, now that I think about it, is it the respect the reader part? I can see how that part might be taken the wrong way. I didn't mean it that way, but I can see how it might come across badly. I could have taken it one step further and said what the full saying is, which wouldn't have gone over well, I feel.
Ok man calm down, im saying that there should have been a scene dedicated to scouting or having a plan to the whole ambush scene. Ok?. When … moreI was playing the game, i was frustrated to as why there was no scene, plan or scouting to the situation at hand, because that's what I would of done, and many others like myself. Does that make sense? It's my own opinion and what I would've done, and the logical thing to do in a situation like that.
And you also edited what you originally said so no one else can see it .
YOU said that they can't show everything, and you said people should read between the lines, because that's what they do in the books, and I agreed with you, but you edited it haha. Anyways, whatever, episode 6 is gonna be good, and it's gonna set up season 2.
"There are whole battles skipped out on in the books, I believe, and it would be for various reasons. You kind of have to read between the lines and think things through, you know, rather than having everything explained."
I edited what. . . ? I always add/remove things or tweak grammar, or make adjustments to clarify. I don't use MS Word to proof read or anyth… moreing. I don't read over what I type before hitting the post button, but I didn't edit out anything bad to my knowledge. So, I'm not sure where that's coming from, though sure, I do sometimes think better of posting something and edit it. This wasn't one of those times.
And I am actually quite calm. I'm not having a go at you. You saying you think they should have that scene in is fine. All I did was say I didn't understand why you said what you did and explain that they can't show everything, while explaining possible reasons for it. That's all. I'm sorry if you felt I was having a go at you.
I also admit that I'm tired of everything, so it's very possible that I've not said things in the best way, but again, it wasn't my intent to come across badly.
Edit: Like just now, I edited this post to cha… [view original content]
I never said people should read between the lines because that's what they do in the books . . . ? I was meaning in general with anything that's not explained properly, or whenever there are events skipped. I guess I didn't explain myself well and err, that part is still in the post. I never edited it out. I did add to it though.
Anyhow, sorry, I'm being pedantic here and probably an arse. I'll let it slide as it doesn't seem like you're saying I said something bad. I thought you were implying I removed something offensive, so no harm done. And sorry if you think I'm being an arse.
Edit: Updated the second post, so hopefully there are no more misunderstandings.
YOU said that they can't show everything, and you said people should read between the lines, because that's what they do in the books, and I… more agreed with you, but you edited it haha. Anyways, whatever, episode 6 is gonna be good, and it's gonna set up season 2.
"There are whole battles skipped out on in the books, I believe, and it would be for various reasons. You kind of have to read between the lines and think things through, you know, rather than having everything explained."
I never said people should read between the lines because that's what they do in the books . . . ? I was meaning in general with anything t… morehat's not explained properly, or whenever there are events skipped. I guess I didn't explain myself well and err, that part is still in the post. I never edited it out. I did add to it though.
Anyhow, sorry, I'm being pedantic here and probably an arse. I'll let it slide as it doesn't seem like you're saying I said something bad. I thought you were implying I removed something offensive, so no harm done. And sorry if you think I'm being an arse.
Edit: Updated the second post, so hopefully there are no more misunderstandings.
duncan can sort of make sense, the moment ethan choise royland as his sentinal he knew the house is going to war and tried to buy time for garred to find the north grove by messing rodricks plans to attack the whitehills or he had an agreement with ludd. royland as the traitor is just stupid
And to put it further in the "can't be Royland as the traitor as it would be stupid thing", Royland says he would "swear to Asher if he was here" when confronted by Rodrick. Basically, Royland would sell Asher out and tell them where he is landing in the North, so the Whitehills can kill him but still thinks Asher is the "True lord of the house" and is loyal to him?
By how Royland was operating as traitor at that time, Asher would have fell for the ambush and been killed if Talia hadn't rooted Royland out. It's one of the bigger plot holes I couldn't get my head around...there is no way Royland can even argue that he is still with the Forrester's (but just dislikes Rodrick) after that. Duncan as traitor does make more sense, he is REALLY banking on the "North grove" to save House Forrester and it's the one thing he didn't mention to Ludd.
duncan can sort of make sense, the moment ethan choise royland as his sentinal he knew the house is going to war and tried to buy time for g… morearred to find the north grove by messing rodricks plans to attack the whitehills or he had an agreement with ludd. royland as the traitor is just stupid
And to put it further in the "can't be Royland as the traitor as it would be stupid thing", Royland says he would "swear to Asher if he was … morehere" when confronted by Rodrick. Basically, Royland would sell Asher out and tell them where he is landing in the North, so the Whitehills can kill him but still thinks Asher is the "True lord of the house" and is loyal to him?
By how Royland was operating as traitor at that time, Asher would have fell for the ambush and been killed if Talia hadn't rooted Royland out. It's one of the bigger plot holes I couldn't get my head around...there is no way Royland can even argue that he is still with the Forrester's (but just dislikes Rodrick) after that. Duncan as traitor does make more sense, he is REALLY banking on the "North grove" to save House Forrester and it's the one thing he didn't mention to Ludd.
I prefer Duncan anyway he actually seemed to have gone rouge for good reasons. Royland just sounded like a dick, blustering about practically saying "I'm right because fuck you!" In my main account Royland was the traitor. I spared him, because I spare everyone, except Gryff. I took great pleasure bashing him up. A shame that glitch is there.
Is this really based on who will be the sentinel, cause some people say that the traitor will be Duncan/Royland based on the choices you made as Rodrik, but I'm not sure...
Yes, whoever you don't choose as Sentinel is the traitor, and they base their argument on why they turned on your decisions. If you make a specific decision that conflicts with their ideology then they point those out. I'm not certain what they say if you've made decisions that side with the traitor's mindset, but I read somewhere they make arguments that Rodrik is a weak leader in general.
Is this really based on who will be the sentinel, cause some people say that the traitor will be Duncan/Royland based on the choices you made as Rodrik, but I'm not sure...
Duncan just blathers on about how Rodrick is violent even if you choose every option for peace. Royland's thing is that he basically calls Rodrick a cripple and weak etc, etc. Both have no argument really and are just lying to themselves/players to make their traitorous actions feel more legit and justified when it is out of place. Both even go "I did what I believed was right" at the end, as if it would justify Ethan's/Rodrick's/Asher's death.
Yes, whoever you don't choose as Sentinel is the traitor, and they base their argument on why they turned on your decisions. If you make a s… morepecific decision that conflicts with their ideology then they point those out. I'm not certain what they say if you've made decisions that side with the traitor's mindset, but I read somewhere they make arguments that Rodrik is a weak leader in general.
Not true, we know that Duncan is good friend of Gregor Forrester (not to mention he raised him from a pig farmer to castellan), we also know… more Royland's family was killed by ironborn and he was taken in by the Forresters and made master at arms. So no it doesn't make sense for either of those two to be the traitor with the reasons that they state. It would be understandable if when confronted they say it was completely down to jealousy, but they clearly think they are helping the family whilst acting directly against it (freeing gryff and informing on ryon rescue plan)
Even Lady Forrester would've made more sense to be the traitor then these two. Episode 6 will determine whether telltales GoT is worth the money... Which it's not looking like it is.
Even Lady Forrester would've made more sense to be the traitor then these two. Episode 6 will determine whether telltales GoT is worth the money... Which it's not looking like it is.
It is in fact very surprising. I chose Royland as Sentinel. But throughout the whole game, my decisions were more aligned with Duncan. But who am I to argue with the TTG writers =/
Not sure why people are surprised either way, it's not impossible to see how Duncan or Ser Royland would betray the house because they weren… more't given what they wanted, we don't really know much about their past or truly how loyal they were to House Forrester, as Daenerys said "Words are wind."
The main thing to annoys me about this, other than how both of them being traitors simply does not correlate with their overall helpfulness throughout the game(behold Duncan sending Gared on a suicidal quest that serves no other purpose than to save house Forrester while single handedly destroying it simultaneously), is how they missed the awesome plot option of Elissa being the traitor.
See, Elissa is the single character that had reasons to betray house Forrester other than "**** You", the only one who could remain a sympathetic character even after the reveal.
That is reason is of course ryon, see, Elissa's prime goal is to keep her family safe, better disowned than dead.
That does not go to say that she wanted house Forrester destroyed, but her son was a hostage, at the mercy of their enemies.
So let's say sometime after Ethan accidentally falls on Ramsay's knife while he was showing it off, Elissa gets a raven from the Whitehills, saying that if she doesn't send them crucial info about her house regularly, Ryon dies, if they have reason to believe she's bullshiting them, Ryon dies, if the Forresters make a move the whitehills didn't know about, ryon dies.
and for me, this makes so much sense with her behavior at the funeral, her feeling helpless to ludd's blackmail, while looking upon the corpse of her son, a corpse he is responsible for, is filled with anger and hate towards the batten hill and then makes that "kill them all" speech.
so she's not betraying the forresters because she's bored, she betrays them because it's the only way to keep her cub safe, and she longs to not having to more than anything.
but NO!
you have to go with the boring plot in which the traitor is apparently mentally retarded or something, how the hell is this helping the forresters? no, seriously, they both stated they were saving the house...yes, by divulging confidential information to their rivals and eliminating their only leverage over said rivals, great job, the house is saved.
I love the op so much. After episode 5 I really don't care what happens to who as it's just so stupid. Looking forward to the final episode though, particularly the north grove plot.
Or Traitor Duncan just wanted to pay Whitehill for peace with whatever treasure it contained. Playing up Duncan as peacenik at any cost would make a lot of sense if his motivation is that he thinks nothing survives if they don't stop fighting because there are bigger problems north of the wall that he found out about when looking into North Grove.
Really, Duncan makes sense as the traitor but Royland? I can't make heads or tails of that one.
Well, I just played through what we have for this game and when I found out Duncan was the traitor, I went "Well, duh!" From the get go, I just gave Duncan a o.O face when he kept arguing for peace despite all the death and hostility had taken place, I just saw any diplomacy or submission as waiting till the Foresters had replaced enough military capacity to make up for all the men they lost at the Twins at the Red Wedding. But still, I could see how Duncan would think peace at any cost was preferable to annihilation. Especially if he had discovered just how dire things were getting North of the Wall as he dug around for information on the North Grove, he might have wanted peace even with the Boltons if he thought it was better than everyone becoming another ice zombie. Maybe Duncan would have thought North Grove would be useful against the Ice Wraiths or maybe he intended to sell its treasures to whoever would guarantee the small folk would survive. There are all kinds of ways Peacenik Duncan's moves make sense as the traitor, to the degree that I was genuinely surprised that the other possible traitor revealed by this thread was ... Royland? WTF. They would have been better off just making it always Duncan and how your choice would have mattered on who is Sentinel because you could pick the wrong choice for Sentinel. Hell, the wife trying to protect her hostaged son or the maester trying to manipulate the North would have made more sense than Royland being pissy over a armband when the Foresters are still letting him swing a sword into his enemies.
I'm with you on that, I thought that was what this thread was going to be about when I clicked on it. Instead, I find out that Duncan, who I suspected of being the traitor numerous times, turns out that other players were more surprised by that than ... the ending where both parties strongly suspect ambush but don't seem to take any precautions against walking into areas that would make ideal ambush locations even though they themselves have carried out numerous ambushes in the past.
Neither used scouts to reconnoiter, advanced along flanks, kept reserves of their own in hiding, posted guards on high ground, used feinting maneuvers, nothing ... they just saunter right into a killing ground past a portcullis because they were both so happy to see each other after all these years despite both of them knowing they are at war with Whitehill and preparing for that for a good portion of our play time?
Makes me think of when these supposedly elite Unsullied get ambushed in the HBO show and end up displaying very little martial skill or teamwork. Its just ... such a hard 180 degree break from character that it either makes your characters reputations as worthy of admiration by other characters as full of shit, throws into question the writing quality of the whole narrative as being entertaining being invested in the characters, or both!
I felt the ending just drove home how little my choices mattered. Why did Roderick just wander carelessly into an ambush he knew about? He's… more a warrior who trained with the military genius of the Young Wolf. He HAS to be more experienced than to do something so stupid. Meanwhile Asher notices from the boat that something is wrong, but he skips on into town anyway. He's a sellsword with no one to trust but Beska and his family. He should have better survival instincts or he would have been dead long ago.
I think a choice between Asher and Roderick COULD have been dramatic and moving. But that only happens if I'm not sitting at my computer, staring at their terrified faces as they hold the winch and thinking to myself "You're both so stupid! I can't believe you just did that! Can I just leave the both of you behind because no matter who I choose, it clearly doesn't matter because you're both going to be idiots when the game feels like it, no matter what choices I make.
This ambush really pissed me off. If the traitor tells you about it 1. should be a trick and an ambush somewhere or else or 2. you should be prepared. To just walk in and get ambushed really ruined a game I was really enjoying.
I edited what. . . ? I always add/remove things or tweak grammar, or make adjustments to clarify. I don't use MS Word to proof read or anyth… moreing. I don't read over what I type before hitting the post button, but I didn't edit out anything bad to my knowledge. So, I'm not sure where that's coming from, though sure, I do sometimes think better of posting something and edit it. This wasn't one of those times.
And I am actually quite calm. I'm not having a go at you. You saying you think they should have that scene in is fine. All I did was say I didn't understand why you said what you did and explain that they can't show everything, while explaining possible reasons for it. That's all. I'm sorry if you felt I was having a go at you.
I also admit that I'm tired of everything, so it's very possible that I've not said things in the best way, but again, it wasn't my intent to come across badly.
Edit: Like just now, I edited this post to cha… [view original content]
Comments
I don't understand why you say:
It has no relevance to what I said. I only used the GoT books as an example, as what I said applies to plenty of things. Telltale telling a story based on the books, where information presented may not always be correct and scenes are skipped out on, does not matter. The Forresters aren't present in the books either, except for one brief mention, I believe.
So I don't know why you mention 'and in this case telltale is telling a story based on books that people may or may not have read, and they shouldn't assume people would know that there are scenes or battles not mentioned'. It's not like Telltale wrote the ending scene of episode 5 and expected you to know the answer because of the books, because it was never covered.
Anyway, point being: for the most part, all books, tv shows, movies and games can't show 'everything' that happens. There are various reasons: budget, time, some things are better left out to make the story better, sometimes things may be left unclear for readers to guess or for them to kind of make their own ending or whatever (this last point is something I've personally used myself two times for varying reasons). Sometimes, it's also a case of the readers being trusted and respected when it comes to information not being shown. You know, it being trusted they can come up with their own explanation? There's a saying among writers, 'respect your readers'.
Ok man calm down, im saying that there should have been a scene dedicated to scouting or having a plan to the whole ambush scene. Ok?. When I was playing the game, i was frustrated to as why there was no scene, plan or scouting to the situation at hand, because that's what I would of done, and many others like myself. Does that make sense? It's my own opinion and what I would've done, and the logical thing to do in a situation like that.
And you also edited what you originally said so no one else can see it
.
I edited what. . . ? I always add/remove things or tweak grammar, or make adjustments to clarify. I don't use MS Word to proof read or anything. I don't read over what I type before hitting the post button, but I didn't edit out anything bad to my knowledge. So, I'm not sure where that's coming from, though sure, I do sometimes think better of posting something and edit it. This wasn't one of those times.
And I am actually quite calm. I'm not having a go at you. You saying you think they should have that scene in is fine. All I did was say I didn't understand why you said what you did and explain that they can't show everything, while explaining possible reasons for it. That's all. I'm sorry if you felt I was having a go at you.
I also admit that I'm tired of everything, so it's very possible that I've not said things in the best way, but again, it wasn't my intent to come across badly.
Edit: Like just now, I edited this post to change 'I always add things or tweak grammar' to 'I always add/remove things or tweak grammar'.
Edit 2: The only antagonistic thing I've said as well is in my second post here, with 'why do i bother?', prompted by you still saying bad writing instead of thinking about what I said, which is what you did in your second reply to me. Therefore, I have no issue with your second reply except I don't understand why you said what you did.
Edit 3: Actually, now that I think about it, is it the respect the reader part? I can see how that part might be taken the wrong way. I didn't mean it that way, but I can see how it might come across badly. I could have taken it one step further and said what the full saying is, which wouldn't have gone over well, I feel.
YOU said that they can't show everything, and you said people should read between the lines, because that's what they do in the books, and I agreed with you, but you edited it haha. Anyways, whatever, episode 6 is gonna be good, and it's gonna set up season 2.
"There are whole battles skipped out on in the books, I believe, and it would be for various reasons. You kind of have to read between the lines and think things through, you know, rather than having everything explained."
I never said people should read between the lines because that's what they do in the books . . . ?
I was meaning in general with anything that's not explained properly, or whenever there are events skipped. I guess I didn't explain myself well and err, that part is still in the post. I never edited it out. 
I did add to it though.
Anyhow, sorry, I'm being pedantic here and probably an arse. I'll let it slide as it doesn't seem like you're saying I said something bad. I thought you were implying I removed something offensive, so no harm done. And sorry if you think I'm being an arse.
Edit: Updated the second post, so hopefully there are no more misunderstandings.
No it's all good man, I wasn't thinking your an arse or anything like that. We're both just trying to hammer in our points of view, no worries.
Yeeessss, why not the Maester? Being beat for not having any news, some logical reasons for it and stuff.
duncan can sort of make sense, the moment ethan choise royland as his sentinal he knew the house is going to war and tried to buy time for garred to find the north grove by messing rodricks plans to attack the whitehills or he had an agreement with ludd. royland as the traitor is just stupid
And to put it further in the "can't be Royland as the traitor as it would be stupid thing", Royland says he would "swear to Asher if he was here" when confronted by Rodrick. Basically, Royland would sell Asher out and tell them where he is landing in the North, so the Whitehills can kill him but still thinks Asher is the "True lord of the house" and is loyal to him?
By how Royland was operating as traitor at that time, Asher would have fell for the ambush and been killed if Talia hadn't rooted Royland out. It's one of the bigger plot holes I couldn't get my head around...there is no way Royland can even argue that he is still with the Forrester's (but just dislikes Rodrick) after that. Duncan as traitor does make more sense, he is REALLY banking on the "North grove" to save House Forrester and it's the one thing he didn't mention to Ludd.
Well the only way I see that is that he prefers Asher, but doesn't particularly care if he lives or dies either. It is a plot hole though.
I prefer Duncan anyway he actually seemed to have gone rouge for good reasons. Royland just sounded like a dick, blustering about practically saying "I'm right because fuck you!" In my main account Royland was the traitor. I spared him, because I spare everyone, except Gryff. I took great pleasure bashing him up. A shame that glitch is there.
Is this really based on who will be the sentinel, cause some people say that the traitor will be Duncan/Royland based on the choices you made as Rodrik, but I'm not sure...
Yes, whoever you don't choose as Sentinel is the traitor, and they base their argument on why they turned on your decisions. If you make a specific decision that conflicts with their ideology then they point those out. I'm not certain what they say if you've made decisions that side with the traitor's mindset, but I read somewhere they make arguments that Rodrik is a weak leader in general.
Duncan just blathers on about how Rodrick is violent even if you choose every option for peace. Royland's thing is that he basically calls Rodrick a cripple and weak etc, etc. Both have no argument really and are just lying to themselves/players to make their traitorous actions feel more legit and justified when it is out of place. Both even go "I did what I believed was right" at the end, as if it would justify Ethan's/Rodrick's/Asher's death.
Even good friends can turn on you.
Some people already made predictions for that, but I guess telltale thought this would be less predictable.
Episode 2 was the best of this season imo.
Even Lady Forrester would've made more sense to be the traitor then these two. Episode 6 will determine whether telltales GoT is worth the money... Which it's not looking like it is.
The fook do you mean by that?!
Episode 6 will determine if I buy season 2.
Pretty simple really..
Oh. Right.
Well, sucks to be you.
156 likes? Like, wow... this must be a very serious issue indeed.
It is in fact very surprising. I chose Royland as Sentinel. But throughout the whole game, my decisions were more aligned with Duncan. But who am I to argue with the TTG writers =/
The main thing to annoys me about this, other than how both of them being traitors simply does not correlate with their overall helpfulness throughout the game(behold Duncan sending Gared on a suicidal quest that serves no other purpose than to save house Forrester while single handedly destroying it simultaneously), is how they missed the awesome plot option of Elissa being the traitor.
See, Elissa is the single character that had reasons to betray house Forrester other than "**** You", the only one who could remain a sympathetic character even after the reveal.
That is reason is of course ryon, see, Elissa's prime goal is to keep her family safe, better disowned than dead.
That does not go to say that she wanted house Forrester destroyed, but her son was a hostage, at the mercy of their enemies.
So let's say sometime after Ethan accidentally falls on Ramsay's knife while he was showing it off, Elissa gets a raven from the Whitehills, saying that if she doesn't send them crucial info about her house regularly, Ryon dies, if they have reason to believe she's bullshiting them, Ryon dies, if the Forresters make a move the whitehills didn't know about, ryon dies.
and for me, this makes so much sense with her behavior at the funeral, her feeling helpless to ludd's blackmail, while looking upon the corpse of her son, a corpse he is responsible for, is filled with anger and hate towards the batten hill and then makes that "kill them all" speech.
so she's not betraying the forresters because she's bored, she betrays them because it's the only way to keep her cub safe, and she longs to not having to more than anything.
but NO!
you have to go with the boring plot in which the traitor is apparently mentally retarded or something, how the hell is this helping the forresters? no, seriously, they both stated they were saving the house...yes, by divulging confidential information to their rivals and eliminating their only leverage over said rivals, great job, the house is saved.
I love the op so much. After episode 5 I really don't care what happens to who as it's just so stupid. Looking forward to the final episode though, particularly the north grove plot.
Or Traitor Duncan just wanted to pay Whitehill for peace with whatever treasure it contained. Playing up Duncan as peacenik at any cost would make a lot of sense if his motivation is that he thinks nothing survives if they don't stop fighting because there are bigger problems north of the wall that he found out about when looking into North Grove.
Really, Duncan makes sense as the traitor but Royland? I can't make heads or tails of that one.
Well, I just played through what we have for this game and when I found out Duncan was the traitor, I went "Well, duh!" From the get go, I just gave Duncan a o.O face when he kept arguing for peace despite all the death and hostility had taken place, I just saw any diplomacy or submission as waiting till the Foresters had replaced enough military capacity to make up for all the men they lost at the Twins at the Red Wedding. But still, I could see how Duncan would think peace at any cost was preferable to annihilation. Especially if he had discovered just how dire things were getting North of the Wall as he dug around for information on the North Grove, he might have wanted peace even with the Boltons if he thought it was better than everyone becoming another ice zombie. Maybe Duncan would have thought North Grove would be useful against the Ice Wraiths or maybe he intended to sell its treasures to whoever would guarantee the small folk would survive. There are all kinds of ways Peacenik Duncan's moves make sense as the traitor, to the degree that I was genuinely surprised that the other possible traitor revealed by this thread was ... Royland? WTF. They would have been better off just making it always Duncan and how your choice would have mattered on who is Sentinel because you could pick the wrong choice for Sentinel. Hell, the wife trying to protect her hostaged son or the maester trying to manipulate the North would have made more sense than Royland being pissy over a armband when the Foresters are still letting him swing a sword into his enemies.
I'm with you on that, I thought that was what this thread was going to be about when I clicked on it. Instead, I find out that Duncan, who I suspected of being the traitor numerous times, turns out that other players were more surprised by that than ... the ending where both parties strongly suspect ambush but don't seem to take any precautions against walking into areas that would make ideal ambush locations even though they themselves have carried out numerous ambushes in the past.
Neither used scouts to reconnoiter, advanced along flanks, kept reserves of their own in hiding, posted guards on high ground, used feinting maneuvers, nothing ... they just saunter right into a killing ground past a portcullis because they were both so happy to see each other after all these years despite both of them knowing they are at war with Whitehill and preparing for that for a good portion of our play time?
Makes me think of when these supposedly elite Unsullied get ambushed in the HBO show and end up displaying very little martial skill or teamwork. Its just ... such a hard 180 degree break from character that it either makes your characters reputations as worthy of admiration by other characters as full of shit, throws into question the writing quality of the whole narrative as being entertaining being invested in the characters, or both!
This ambush really pissed me off. If the traitor tells you about it 1. should be a trick and an ambush somewhere or else or 2. you should be prepared. To just walk in and get ambushed really ruined a game I was really enjoying.
[removed]