|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Nov 12, 2019 17:10:52 GMT
As mentioned before, this is the next big thing I'm looking at implementing in Liminal.
These really can be anything, from deaths or resignations of NPCs, to new taxes, to riots and unrest.
At the moment, we're at the brainstorming stage, so a few questions to get people started.
1. Is this actually something most people would like to see? It does make Paris more "alive". It also makes the game more unpredictable, which some may love and others may hate. Especailly as random chance is by definition unfair. Even with the existing rules some people have never got drunk at a party, others have had negative results two months in a row.
2. How to implement it.
There's two options here.
The first is to have a chance of a random event each turn and a table for what the event is when it happens. I'd probably separate it into "personal" and "paris" events if doing it this way.
Come up with a list of possible events and roll for each separately. This isn't actually much more work for me; just a lot of dice. It's actually how the random events we do currently have (pregnancy, drunkenness) currently work.
3. Any events people would like in there or alternatively are hoping aren't included?
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Nov 12, 2019 18:01:34 GMT
My answers: 1) yes, I think it would make the game more "alive" 2) I mostly thought about the personal ones (though I think the Paris ones would also be a good idea). In this way, I'd suggest you two ways to decide who is affected: - Rol lone die per character to see if /s(he is affected by them (let's say on a 6)
- Roll for a number of characters affected (e.g. 1d6-3 + #of characters/5, so that as more characters in play, more of them are affected) and choose randomly who are affected (up to the rolled number)
In both cases, it should be decided if more than one could affect a single player (in the first case, rerolling until no event is rolled, in te second, accepting it if a character is affected twice or more) or only one random event can affect each character in a single month. 3) I had some to suggest, if you want the list, but for now just saying that the effect should not be letal (of course).
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Nov 12, 2019 18:34:36 GMT
I welcome a measure of unpredictability.
I would rather not have unavoidably fatal surprises, such as finding out in the turn results that I had died of some disease, but even potentially deadly could be okay; say an illness which can be cured, but with a chance of death if I choose to be stingy with doctor's fees.
How about some war-related events? Perhaps the dastardly Spaniards could mount a winter offensive, requiring an army to be formed as for the usual summer campaign, or inclement weather could mean little or no fighting one month, so no battle rolls for all or most regiments. Losing turns would, of course, be inconvenient, and could mess up a character's plan (to repay loans, for example), but I don't think it would be a major hardship in general, considering the rapid turnaround in Liminal.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Nov 12, 2019 20:12:45 GMT
> 1. Is this actually something most people would like to see?
Frankly, no, not in my case. I view EG! as a rules-based game which should be played _by_ players, not played _on_ players - which is what random events effectively do. When the best laid plans of mice and men go awry it should be because of the actions of other players (unwelcome rivals on a lady's doorstep or for a plum appointment etc.) _not_ because of some random die roll.
For this reason I think the "a roll of 12 gives a 50% chance of death and a 50% chance of rolling on the 'Dicing with Death' table - everyone on the battle field faces some risk" rule is unnecessary. As the original rules say 'rank hath its privilieges' and someone who has worked his way up the military ladder sufficiently to get mods allowing a Death Roll of 13+ should live to enjoy them rather than being sent to his grave by some random dice roll.
Similarly, I don't see the point of the drunkeness table, especially as it means that someone can go to their club for a quiet drink and end up, through no fault of their own, at the Frontier until mentioned (which is more than likely to be a death sentence). Death really has a way of bringing all a character's previous planning to nothing - and it shouldn't just come out of the blue thanks to a random roll of the dice.
None of these new random events, if they are implemented should lead to sudden death either.
> 2. How to implement it.
At the same time I appreciate that some players do enjoy the uncertainty of having some random element at play. Some players in my game risk death at the front (in return of better chances of mention, promotion and loot) even when they have DM's which could take them to 13+ Death.
Is there a way to keep both camps happy ?
I think there is. Guiseppe Spaghetti has been subject to the Drunkeness Table so often that I was beginning to wonder if the GM might be letting him get uproariously drunk on purpose. Maybe that might be an idea? Why don't we allow those who wish to live dangerously have increased chances of being subject to a throw on the Drunkeness (and any other Random Event table) and allow those wishing to live cautiously to have a reduced chance ? For example, where the Drunkeness Table is concerned, characters are subject to a roll on it as a result of carousing on a roll of 11+ on 2D6. Why don't we allow each character to character to
Live Dangerously (+2 to the this 11+ eligibility roll) Live Normally (No Modifiers) Live Cautiously (-2 to the eligibility roll).
This would be putting control back in the hands of the players, rather than taking it away by imposing blanket random events from on high.
Of course this could only apply to Personal (not city) outcome tables but, for the reasons mentioned above, City random events should never have fatal results.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Nov 12, 2019 21:32:36 GMT
For example, where the Drunkeness Table is concerned, characters are subject to a roll on it as a result of carousing on a roll of 11+ on 2D6. Why don't we allow each character to character to Live Dangerously (+2 to the this 11+ eligibility roll) Live Normally (No Modifiers) Live Cautiously (-2 to the eligibility roll). I would be happy with this approach; it fits well with bravery and poltroonery from the standard rules. Incidentally, I never found bravery a wise route to riches: the increased chance of death has always, in my calculations, reduced the expected (average) loot, since dead men do not collect coins. Of course, it does increase the variance (more likely to be death or riches, rather than survival in poverty), so can make for a wild ride, which no doubt suits some players.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Nov 13, 2019 1:47:01 GMT
Frankly, no, not in my case. I view EG! as a rules-based game which should be played _by_ players, not played _on_ players - which is what random events effectively do. When the best laid plans of mice and men go awry it should be because of the actions of other players (unwelcome rivals on a lady's doorstep or for a plum appointment etc.) _not_ because of some random die roll. I take your point, but for that I think that En Garde! actually would need more house rules to encourage PvP. It's actually pretty easy currently to exist without seriously competing with other PCs. I think EG! is in an odd position on this one, falling slightly uneasily between PvP and PvE. There are a handful of random events already in the core. The Bawdyhouse is the obvious one. Although that's been standarised to stop it just being a way of punishing players who forget to put "only take enough for costs" in their orders. The other one is the rules for the Captain of the Cardinal's Guard. That one's especially odd as nothing else like it exists in the rules. The ability to use Influence does mitigate that somewhat though. I'm afraid that's the only part of your post I strongly disagree with. The privileges of rank should be the ability to take large modifers on your chance of positive results without a higher chance of death. I don't think they should stretch to turning characters into immortal gods. Which effectively is what having no risk does. The worst possible death roll for a General commanding an army is 14. And that's assuming they have a Military Ability of 3 or less, which strikes me as highly unlikely if they've risen through the ranks. Other arguments: A military career is always a choice. The rewards for being at the front far outstrip the other careers. I'll return to the resolution system properly after the campaign (when we'll have full data) but it's worth mentioning that the safe option means that any Army Commander can choose only to roll for death once. So taking all that into account, the chance of even having to make a survival roll at all are 2.78% and even then you have a 50% chance of a reprieve. That strikes me as a fair trade off for the near certainty that an Army Commander is going to be making large amounts of loot. That's a fair point. It's somewhat glaring as the only thing in the rules that can send a character to the front without it being the direct consequence of player actions. The only real counterargument to that is that it's there to provide a counterweight to players who choose to gamble with drunkeness every month. But that's not an especially strong argument and I'm happy to take proposed alternatives. The only reason I don't see that as a major priority is quite how unlikely that result is (0.39% if I've calculated right). So I don't think it's likely to ever be seen in play. I can categorically state that any sudden death results will be limited to NPCs only and that includes being randomly sent to the front. Heh, yeah, Guiseppe Spaghetti is a good example of how randomness can actually produce results far more unfair than GM fiat. On the drunkeness issue, I think there's a more straightforward solution. It's already the case that characters can choose to get excessively drunk, automatically rolling on the drunkenness table. So that covers the risk takers. The easiest way to remove drunkenness from those players who don't want it is to remove the requirement to carouse if you're toadying to someone who is also carousing. That's the big penalty for not drinking at the moment as toadying is obviously a major way to gain SP. That would leave players with the option to not risk drunkneness, while not paying the cost of drinks or getting 1 SP. That seems balanced to me; not getting a single Carousing SP isn't going to cripple anyone. Covered above. None of this will have fatal results for PCs. The closest I can think of is maybe NPC duellists. I will say that random event duellists will never insist on a fight to the death and will agree to first blood if asked. In the case of GS specifically, it's worth noting that duel only started moving to a duel to the death after he demanded one as part of a bluffing attempt. I don't think it's letting on too much "behind the scenes" stuff if I mention that I gave the bluff 50% chance of working and it failed. The other thing I will mention is that if this does go forward I'll be listing every event and its mechanical result individually, so people can object to specific ones. Hopefully that should avoid unintended consequences like the ones from the (now reverted) Mistress changes. I know that none of this is likely to shift you in favour of random events, but I hope it at least has gone some way to assuage your concerns about how I'd be implementing it!
|
|
|
Post by Jacques D'Mestos on Nov 14, 2019 11:40:34 GMT
I'm not in favour of random events.
If you want to increase PvP, then personally I think a better route is to reduce the number of regiments available significantly until the player count is higher. Additionally, if you want PvP, then why have you introduced Women PC's, Doctors, Church, and Merchant streams. This is what I mean when I say it's already quite diluted.
Although not obviously relevant immediately, personally I'd probably move to a different method of duelling such as TPT used. There, if two regimental rivals met at a club, they'd fight a duel, the loser would go home and lick his wounds and the winner would continue with his ordered actions. This had the advantage of having more PvP interactions just happen, giving an element of "random event" chance that wasn't truly random as they players controlled where and what their characters did.
If you want an opt-in/out scheme perhaps you might look at something like Ray had in Beyond All Else which allowed for players to "scheme". The player came up with something they wanted to do, Ray determined how difficult or easy it was to achieve and how much effort would be required, and then the player could choose to spend a week pursuing that gaining a pass/fail/critical success roll. This allowed players to decide on a path that was more dangerous than anything in the base game but gave license for narrative development outside of the rule framework.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Nov 14, 2019 12:06:07 GMT
I've not been able to find this option anywhere in the current rules? Not being compelled to carouse in order to toady would, indeed, allow players to 'opt out'. As you say, the loss of 1 Sp isn't earth-shattering.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Nov 14, 2019 14:09:51 GMT
I'm not in favour of random events. If you want to increase PvP, then personally I think a better route is to reduce the number of regiments available significantly until the player count is higher. That's definitely something to consider. My main worry with it is it will make the higher officer ranks very clogged. I don't necessarily, at least not at the expense of alternative career paths. What I'm saying is if, as has been suggested, this should be a heavily PvP focused game I'd be looking at quite different rules than the ones we have. Much more of an "economy of scarcity", more reward for aggression towards other players etc. I'm not currently convinced that's a good idea; it would change the nature of the game entirely to something more like Diplomacy. I'm not against that on principle. My main issue with it is that it's fine for En Garde! veterens who already have a good grasp of the core rules. For newbies (and this game probably has more than the average because I've gone out my way to recruit outside the standard circles) I worry that expecting people to have duel orders ready to go would be intimidating on top of the rest of the game. I don't think I know Beyond All Else. Do you have a link? Neither have I. How very odd, I was sure it was in there! Anyone got an issue with it just being added? Let's definitely go with that then. That leads me to my suggestion for random events. For the personal events, I think we just allow players like you and Jacques to opt out. That means you'll only have to deal with rare city events, where at least everyone is affected. I'll also list all possibilities so you know about them and can object if anything seems too major. I will warn that I think you may be at a small disadvantage not using personal events. Not a big one; I have no intention of having life changing events like unexpected ennobling! But it's just the nature of randomness. Much like the front, players with a streak of luck are likely to do well out of this in the same way ones with a streak of bad luck are likely to do badly.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Nov 14, 2019 14:38:12 GMT
I was not aware of this option when I saw your comment yesterday, and could not find it in the rules, but I eventually found it mentioned in one of your earlier posts.
Welcome Forum > Spotlight on: Clubs I am happy for this to be added to the rules. Party on!
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Nov 14, 2019 14:56:38 GMT
I'm not against that on principle. My main issue with it is that it's fine for En Garde! veterens who already have a good grasp of the core rules. For newbies (and this game probably has more than the average because I've gone out my way to recruit outside the standard circles) I worry that expecting people to have duel orders ready to go would be intimidating on top of the rest of the game. I personally agree some form of inmediate duelling should be applied. As I see it, there are two kinds of duels: - Formal ones: when one character is offended by another one and formally challenges him, according a place, weapons (if agreed) and seconds (e.g. the Spaghetti vs Demerat affair, or one player courting another mistress while he's not with her).
- Inmediate (informal) ones: when two characters meet and just fight informally (e.g. regimental enemities or two (or more ) players courting the same lady at the same time.
In the first case, either the current rules or any alternative could be used, as players know beforehand they will hav the duels, and any death is assumed to be accepted risk and treated as manslaughter (and probably rarely pursued) by the authorities. In the second one, a way to solve then inmediatly should be found, and, not being so formal, and any death should be treated as murder (I understand more serious, as the involved people did not expect them, so have no possibility to avoid them), and it would be more easily pursued. See that, IIRC, we see both cases in The Three Musketeers, formal ones when d'Artagnan challenges Athos, Portos and Aramis "behind the Convent" at specified times (duels that finally are not fought) and i nthe many instances they meet Cardinal Guards. Neither have I. How very odd, I was sure it was in there! Anyone got an issue with it just being added? No issues on my part Let's definitely go with that then. That leads me to my suggestion for random events. For the personal events, I think we just allow players like you and Jacques to opt out. Neither here I have any issue I'll also list all possibilities so you know about them and can object if anything seems too major. I was just about to suggest the opposite, not allowing the players to know which events they might find. IMHO, this will increase the randomness and make them more alive. I'd suggest for people to suggest you (in private) possible events and you (and only you and Rhi) to decide wdich ones may be used, and the players not to know what might affect them until they are affected by on (or more) such events, be it for good or bad. See that in some cases, the player might not be sure if he has been affected by a random event or some other player's schemes...
|
|
|
Post by Jacques D'Mestos on Nov 14, 2019 15:08:02 GMT
Hi, Beyond All Else was run via the Canterbury Gamers News site which is sadly dead. I don't believe I have a copy of the BAE rules on my other pc but I'll have a look.
The duelling rules in TPT and BAE used D20 and did not require the use of the duelling routines like we have here. I think I've mentioned I've never actually fought a duel with the routines despite playing in I think 7 different games!
With regards to players opting out of sections of the rules, frankly I disagree mightily. We either play on a level playing field or we don't is my opinion. It seems you're determined to push through with the suggested change anyway, since we've heard from a total of 4 players thus far, split right down the middle in favour and not. At the end of the day, you're the GM. If you're going to implement something, then implement it for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Nov 14, 2019 15:23:43 GMT
With regards to players opting out of sections of the rules, frankly I disagree mightily. We either play on a level playing field or we don't is my opinion. It seems you're determined to push through with the suggested change anyway, since we've heard from a total of 4 players thus far, split right down the middle in favour and not. At the end of the day, you're the GM. If you're going to implement something, then implement it for everyone. Unfortunately, that "split down the middle" is unlikely to change. We last discussed it in September and there's been no real movement since then in terms of a consensus. Which is why I'm trying to look for a version that suits both camps, because it's quite so split. It's worth remembering we have a sizeable number of active players who never or rarely participate in rules discussions. And several of those have indicated to me privately that's because they really don't care enough about what rules we have and should be counted out of discussions in the area.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Nov 14, 2019 16:46:42 GMT
With regards to players opting out of sections of the rules, frankly I disagree mightily. We either play on a level playing field or we don't is my opinion. If everyone has the option of either being subject to individual random events or opting out how is that not a level playing field...? I have no problem with players being able to choose to become uproariously drunk - or deciding not to carouse at all.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Nov 14, 2019 16:48:48 GMT
I agree. The game is full of opportunities to accept risk for potential gain: volunteering for the front; bravery/poltroonery; embezzlement; gambling; etc.
|
|