|
Post by gaston on Nov 29, 2019 13:56:15 GMT
Well, equally realistically, by the time someone has reached SL 7+ and has been around long enough to amass the 4,200 spare cash needed to purchase the cheapest possible Barony (in Gascony or Provence, those in the Isle de France would be double that) they are more than likely to have reached SL 11 in any case. Since the whole question is likely to be purely academic anyway, why add needless complication? Where bought estates are concerned, the jump should occur when ownership (and right to the title) has been registered with the King's Chamberlain (taking a week of game time). Titles and estates were inextricably linked, whether bestowed, inherited or purchased If you lost the estate, you lost the title.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Nov 29, 2019 20:55:25 GMT
But you're fine with a few lucky character generation rolls doing exactly the same thing...? What's the diff ? Realistically, no-one is likely to have the cash to purchase anything bigger than a Barony - and will need to be SL7+ beforehand in order to do so. A jump from SL 7 to SL 11 is a jump of 4 SLs, exactly the same as a SL 6 character (with a few lucky rolls) would get if awarded a knighthood. Again, what's the difference ? I have said before, I am against easy homogenisation of characters. I don't like the rules which make it easier for those who rolled low attributes in one area or another to catch up, such as granting weak officers MA uplifts for poor battle results, or allowing those with low scores more easily to raise them at an academy or school. I feel such rules make it more likely characters tend towards equality, rather than having, perhaps, a toff with little talent for swordplay, or a military genius lacking physical strength. I have not gone over the rules on estates in detail, but it sounds like something which makes it easier for commoners to play catch-up with those born to higher circles.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Nov 29, 2019 21:32:14 GMT
I have said before, I am against easy homogenisation of characters. I don't like the rules which make it easier for those who rolled low attributes in one area or another to catch up, such as granting weak officers MA uplifts for poor battle results, or allowing those with low scores more easily to raise them at an academy or school. I feel such rules make it more likely characters tend towards equality, rather than having, perhaps, a toff with little talent for swordplay, or a military genius lacking physical strength. I have not gone over the rules on estates in detail, but it sounds like something which makes it easier for commoners to play catch-up with those born to higher circles. Just for datapoints on that, I believe the revised MA increase rules have come into play once since the game started. The Academy a bit more, but not much. (Partly I suspect because they're restrictive enough that anyone using them is likely to fall behind in other areas quickly). I do take your point about homogenisation and share it to an extent. So far at least, it's not been the case when I look at the characters as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Nov 30, 2019 8:56:54 GMT
Not easy by any means, and equally difficult historically - but nevertheless possible. Denying characters the possibility in Liminal because it might tend towards the homogenisation of characters doesn't seem a particularly strong argument.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques D'Mestos on Nov 30, 2019 10:51:36 GMT
Personally I think titles should not be bought. I don't believe it's going to homogenize the characters I think it's going to polarize them even more. You will have those who "earned" them through title attempts. You will have them who bought them through being lucky on the battlefield for plunder. (Let's face it, no one is going to EARN the money required through pay and income) and then you'll have those who didn't do either of those things. Both of those routes essentially come from the battlefield which very carefully breaks down the rolls for survival, plunder, MID or promotion. Why then end up lumping several of those back together?
This just looks like extra chrome which doesn't really add anything to the game if I'm honest.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Nov 30, 2019 11:08:54 GMT
Even though historically this was the case? Why buck history? To what purpose ? IMHO it adds a fundamental credibility to the game. Land was _the_ status symbol of the period, not notional SL. See what Sully amassed (above). Not to allow characters in Liminal to do the same goes way past my suspension of disbelief level personally.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Nov 30, 2019 13:26:52 GMT
On Sl, I see that as an abstracted "general esteem" rather than a concrete measure.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques D'Mestos on Nov 30, 2019 15:54:55 GMT
Even though historically this was the case? Why buck history? To what purpose ? IMHO it adds a fundamental credibility to the game. Land was _the_ status symbol of the period, not notional SL. See what Sully amassed (above). Not to allow characters in Liminal to do the same goes way past my suspension of disbelief level personally. OK. You're playing the "historical accuracy" card? Interesting gambit. Sully was the son of a Baron. And was an "special agent" and soldier who served his King in extremis. He was a recognised statesman playing the role of ambassador and director of the Council of Finances. He was regarded as "the kings man" and was awarded the Dukedom as reward. On that basis I'd say he fits pretty well into the vanilla rules for titles - do something on the battlefield and be rewarded for it. Did he purchase additional land and titles? Who knows. I can't find any sign either way in a 2sec google search. Was he in a position to do that because he was simply rich? I personally doubt it. So if this is your template then these things need to be in place; Noble at birth. Served as soldier and distinguished at it. Recognised statesman with multiple offices Did great deeds in those offices. Rewarded with a Dukedom. Potentially have great wealth to buy additional titles/land. Now lets consider the game world in which we're talking about. How many of the characters were of noble birth at creation? If you're not then you're already out. Then you need to have served as a soldier and been good at it. We already have rules for this and some make that grade. Stateman? Well, we don't have anyone in any sort of high rank yet or appointment. And then we need to work out how you distinguish yourself in that. Frankly I find it incredible that your suspension of disbelief can hold for female characters literally whoring themselves around (per the rules they could) and working their way up the social ladder and not being despised but not that players who may have started out SL 2 and the son of a labourer not be able to buy titles. Name me one such example of history and I might begin to change my mind. Even then the problem is that one such example does not mean it was anywhere near as commonplace or as likely as it could be within the game. In my eyes the game already holds enough options and avenues for rich and high SL players to enjoy the game without giving them a shortcut to even more wealth and power. I also don't like the fact that inevitably the road to such a position comes from two versions of the same thing, namely the battle roll.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Dec 1, 2019 16:03:10 GMT
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. We're playing a game set in the France of 1630. What other baseline can we use other than...France in 1630? Fiction set in the period isn't a good yardstick to use since authors' interpretations differ and no player will have read them all anyway. It's impossible to assume common ground here. In any case the best of them use the accurate history the period as their background anyway - and the history of the period is easily accessible by everyone... I think you're missing the point completely. Sully (who, as you've shown, began his career as the son of a lowly Baron), finished it as Duc de Sully; Sovereign Prince of Henrichemont and Boisbelle; Marquis de Rosny; Marquis de Nogent-le-Béthune; Comte de Muret; Comte de Villebon; Viscomte de Meaux; Viscomte de Champrond; Baron de Conti; Baron de Caussade; Baron de Montricoux; Baron de Montigny; Baron de Breteuil; Baron de Francastel; Sieur de La Falaise; Sieur de Las; Sieur de Vitray; Sieur de Lalleubellouis; Lord (Sieur) of various other places. With Estates rules in place, characters in Liminal can seek to emulate that career. Without them, they can't. End of story. Well, let's look at the potted bios of a couple of historical ladies of the period shall we? The following two are taken from some character notes at the end of a translation of Dumas' 'The Red Sphinx', the sequal to the Three Musketeers which can be found here: books.google.co.uk/books?id=qAO6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT577&lpg=PT577&dq=cardinal+richelieu+mistress&source=bl&ots=fYOd1DtBq5&sig=ACfU3U1rTr6XYjiJV0TsuFqhOfsahZC9bQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjiiOjE35TmAhXROcAKHSC7CGI4ChDoATAGegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=cardinal%20richelieu%20mistress&f=falseCOMBALET: Marie Madeleine de Vignerot du Pont de Combalet (1604-75). Marie de Vignerot was one of Cardinal Richelieu's several nieces, and of them certainly his favourite. In 1620 she was married to the Sieur de Combalet, a nephew of the then-Constable de Luynes; it was a sad mismatch, and after he died in 1622 the Widow Combalet became a Carmelite nun and swore off marriage and men. But she'd developed a taste for High Society and, thanks to her position as a lady-in-waiting to Queen Mother Marie de Médicis (due to Richelieu's influence), every door was opened to her. She became an habitué of the Rambouillet salons, a patron of the arts and artists, and very probably Richelieu's mistress. Her hand was sought by a series of great nobles seeking an alliance with the cardinal-minister, but nothing ever came of these courtships - and indeed, she didn't need a high-ranking husband as she was made Duchesse d'Aiguillon in her own right in 1638 for her (ahem) services to the State. After the Cardinal died she withdrew from high society but continued her patronage of the arts and sciences, sponsoring mathematicians, poets and writers including Pierre Corneille, whose breakthrough play The Cid was dedicated to her. FARGIS: Madeleine de Silly, Madame de Fargis (?-1639). Though he disliked and distrusted women, the reign of Louis XIII abounded with clever, brave and free-spririted ladies - an irony that wasn't lost on Dumas, who wrote about them wherever possible. La Fargis was smart, talented, irreverent and mischievous, and Dumas couldn't resist making her drop dead gorgeous into the bargain, though she didn't need looks to enthrall her impressive roster of high-ranking lovers. As a young woman her amorous adventures scandalised her father, who sent her to a Carmelite convent to straighten her out - but it didn't take. When he died she rejoined the salons of Parisian society and soon captivated Charles d'Angennes, Comte de Fargis, who promptly married her and carried her off to Madrid where he'd been appointed as French Ambassador. After outraging the prim and prudish Court of Philip IV for four years, she returned with her husband to Paris - right about the time the King had banished the Duchesse de Chevreuse from Queen Anne's household and Richelieu was looking for someone to replace her. Madame de Combalet admired La Fargis' brains and wit and recommended her to the Cardinal, who sponsored her for the role - but once in Her Majesty's household she quickly gained Anne's trust and transferred her loyalty to the Queen. To Richelieu's displeasure, Fargis soon became almost as troublesome as Madame de Chevreuse. Other interesting ladies of the period you could check out are Madame de Chevreuse (Marie de Rohan in Wikipedia) (1600-79) Charlotte Margeurite de Montmorency (1594-1650) Marie de Lort, Madame de Cavois (?-1665) Princesse Marie Louise de Gonzague (1611-67) Marie Le Jars, Demoiselle de Gournay (1565-1645) Mademoiselle Marie de Hautefort (1616-91) Not much suspension of disbelief required there is there ? Because that is in direct contradiction of the historical facts. The following from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nobilityAnd in all probablility getting exempted from paying the taille merely required greasing the right palms. The father of Marie Le Jars mentioned above, Guillaume Le Jars, was treasurer to King Henry III of France. In 1568 he obtained feudal rights to the Gournay estate in Picardy, and in 1573, after he purchased the Neufvy estate, he became Seigneur de Neufvy et de Gournay. As has already been stated, by the time any character is in a position to buy a Barony his or her SL will probably be higher then SL 11 (the minimum for Baron) anyway. And far from being a shortcut to wealth, the revenues from an estate won't cover the purchase price for at least ten years and probably a lot longer. If increasing wealth is the aim, purchasing an estate is not the way to do it. Not so. Titles can be secured by RAS membership, producing plays, holding government positions and successful foreign expeditions - in addition to luck on the battlefield. And large amounts of cash can be embezzled by non-military characters too.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques D'Mestos on Dec 1, 2019 17:12:02 GMT
Sorry, I must have missed the bit in the example within a work of fiction which you dismiss out of hand in your first paragraph where either of the ladies you reference are shown working in a bawdy house as a whore. But that's OK because it doesn't really matter. Since we're going for historical accuracy are we going to add a roll per month when paying for support to see if the character dies of venereal disease, dysentry, food poisoning or flu (or any of the other myriad routine causes of death for people of the period?) How about old age? Historical accuracy is all well and good but I feel it is a poor excuse for picking and choosing which bits of history you actually want.
Is it not the case that often Noble titles are in a hierarchy of sorts, so a dukedom may in fact bring with it several subordinate titles? Is that not perhaps how Sully came to have so many lowly titles amongst his impressive list? Besides which I don't think I've understood definitively that Sully bought those titles in the first place.
At the end of the day you and I disagree and as you point out, it's actually over a rule which probably won't get used much if at all since as you point out the cost/benefit of additional purchased estates is not great and will likely appeal to only a few specific players. I'll shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Dec 2, 2019 0:55:11 GMT
The potted bios are historical notes on historical characters that Dumas later utilised in his fiction. How were they dismissed?
You were after 'female characters literally whoring themselves around' rather than actually 'working in a bawdy house as a whore' but if that's what you really want, check out Madame du Barry. Slightly out of our period but, hey, she worked in a bawdy house as a whore and rose to be the mistress of the King of France.
Hyperbole will get us nowhere. As I suspect you well know, a roll per month when paying for support to see if the character dies of venereal disease, dysentry, food poisoning or flu (or any of the other myriad routine causes of death for people of the period) would add little to the game apart from more die rolling for the GM. Land ownership and access to it, by way of contrast, were cornerstones on which the whole of French society was based and without it Liminal's society just doesn't seem credible. There is a qualitative difference there.
No, and certainly not in Liminal. Whether he did or not - and I think the overwhelming balance of probabilities is that he did where most of them are concerned - the point is that Liminal characters can only have one title bestowed upon them. Any extras would have to be bought and paid for...
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Dec 10, 2019 12:13:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 10, 2019 23:52:57 GMT
Thanks for this! I'll have a proper look through after press tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 11, 2019 3:29:49 GMT
Ok, had a chance to go through these. All in all I like them, thanks for putting in the work!
The changes I wish to make follow:
Note: Some of this could change with later things. In particular, the "do we have more skills" discussion is still up in the air. Obviously, that could change estates majorly.
Occasions for title attempts:
Just a few alterations here to fit the new military rules.
You no longer need to be mentioned in MiDs three times in one season. Title attempts for being mentioned in dispatches require 2 MiDs for each attempt at elevation to a Chevalier, 3 for Baron, 4 for Marquis, 5 for Viscomte, 6 for Comte and 7 for Dûc.
Now it should be only on a result of 1 when commanding a Regiment.
Everything else remains the same.
Disfavour of the King
Note that -1 is going to really screw up title attempt rolls! I'm in favour of this, but worth warning people.
Differences between Granted and Bought Titles/Estates
Sorry Gaston, I know you aren't keen on this but I prefer it and it has some support in the thread.
My two changes are as follows.
I am implementing the rule that bought titles will only raise you to two SLs below the normal rise. As has been said, this is likely to be mostly academic.
In terms of historicity, there absolutely was an informal but important distinction between noblesse d'épée and noblesse de lettres and this is a very simplifed way of reflecting that.
Upkeep is paid on bought Estates. (The King isn't going to pay it for you in this case). I think the easiest thing here is to just half the income.
What do people think? Both of those are easy in terms of bookkeeping at my end.
Estate Residences
Upkeep is paid on these (as it includes servants etc.) and SP is gained for them normally.
Character Generation
This looks mostly fine with just a few issues/questions.
Is this being implemented retroactively, because if so it's a lot more complex than just adding birth provinces. I'm not absolutely against doing this if so, but not if there's any real opposition. People can get very irate about having characters tinkered with after generation.
How does this affect 2nd-4th sons and female characters, who can also be orphans in the house rules? Standard cash inheritance?
I'm not actually that worried about the possible imbalance with orphaned first sons of nobles. It's so statistically unlikely I doubt we'll see it more than once in the entire game.
Chamberlain
Can the Chamberlain refuse to ratify a title purchase? (This mostly will come up if we get a PC Chamberlain).
Provinces
These should be considered a placeholder in case of more developed provincial rules
Mortgages
These work well at lower noble levels. Not so sure at higher levels; especially Ducs who have no reason not to mortgage everything. As well as no further title attempts, I'm inclined to give insolvent nobility -1 to all appointment rolls. What do people think?
Male/Female PC Distinction
Just putting this here for completeness. I'm not sure historically how easy it would have been for women to buy titles like this, but for the sake of playability I'm ignoring this issue entirely. (Same as we're not making people get lettres patentes!)
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Dec 11, 2019 10:15:03 GMT
Some questions:
Is the state income a fixed ammount or it is rolled each turn?
Are state incomes cummulative, should a character hols deveral titles?
|
|