Just as a quick thing I felt/noticed playing this game - I felt a lot less... involved? It's hard to explain - but as a comparison to GoT1, I think the fewer houses and more members per house was more enjoyable than the more houses (and fewer people per house). Just a personal preference, I think though. Would be interested in hearing how other people feel about this dynamic though - for future GMs wanting to try a style akin to this? :3
I think I can understand that sentiment. More houses means more enemies and fewer allies, making the game far more political than the first game, which was still quite political.
For me, personally, I started unaligned in aSoIaF, was promptly N0ed, and came back as a Stark when the Houses were all already pretty damaged, so it was never a large group for me.
In this game, I similarly started out in a "House" of two, was killed N1, and came back as an unaligned role (which was quickly converted into a Stark role), so it was pretty much the same experience for me, though this game relied much more heavily on the games' history and there were more people to try and win over.
The one thing about these games, which I both love and hate, is that it
is more politics than mafia. There's no clear target to eliminate; you just have to eliminate anyone not aligned with you. In order to do this, you have to convince others that someone else is a bigger threat---which is often pointless and fruitless. It's dumb and frustrating in that regard, but still entertaining.
My current setup for
The Tune of Stone and Ash has five houses, with three having four players initially and two having eight players initially, and another group of four (a "house" in function, but not technically), plus some unaffiliated roles. That's still a major WIP though.