Homgenisation of Characters: An Open Discussion

[Ymbert Montgomery]

JPM brought up a point elsewhere I think deserves it's own thread.

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.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.

As I said in the other thread, we aren't really seeing this issue yet. Having access to all the characters, I can say there's a wide spread.

That said, there are some things that could be done that would make characters even more individual and reduce the chance of this arising in the future.

Just to throw a few ideas out:

More stats/abilities. Some other games have done this; skills for dancing, etiquette, hunting. This obviously diffentiates characters a lot more strongly. It also means players need to look at specialising more; it's unlikely you can choose to be good at everything. It also would possibly allow for more careers. It's fair to say that at the moment Fathers Lachapelle/Robin/Basse, Helen Bacque and Quintin Aiguille are all playing a very different game to everyone else.

There's two main issues with this approach. The obvious one is that it does move characters away quite heavily from the original simplicity of the core rules. More subtly, it is likely to force characters down certain paths. (This could technically be avoided with point buy but I'm of the view that's alien to the spirit of En Garde!)

Make Progression more complicated. I use "complicated" not "difficult" deliberately here. If going down this road my favourite approach is not to limit what people can do but to make it more of a tradeoff against other possibilities. The obvious way to do this would be to increase the limit for carryover SP from 1.5 x SL to 2 x SL. So you'd still be able to go to Military Academy, you'd just have trouble aggressively rising in SL while you do. While this might work, I'm of the view it would be better to look at it seriously alongside more ways to earn SPs.

Of course, people may not see this as an issue at all which is also fine!

[gaston]

Of course, people may not see this as an issue at all which is also fine!

Personally, I don't see a problem in players having the option improve upon generation scores. It is both costly and time consuming - and the alternative is to see characters being purposely killed off in hopes of a better replacement (a different route to homogenisation).

The extra abilities in Sun King were kinda fun, but I can't help but wonder if the extra die rolling they entailed was a factor in the game's demise ?

If progression was made more 'complicated' the 'study must be completed in a single month' rules would have to be dropped, otherwise it would be impossible rather than complicated. (To be honest, the 'study must be completed in a single month' rules don't seem to make much sense anyway...)

[Jacques D'Mestos]

Interesting discussion. Some of the issues I have found in Engarde in all the games I've played have been the following;

- Low sl characters having very little impact on the big picture game. To be expected with the concept of SL but it tends to equate to a two or more tier game where characters just do not interact with each other.

- high SL characters actually being self sustaining quite easily and with very little risk except to other players. At the bottom of the pile it can be difficult to achieve anything due to the risk of the mechanics. It usually involves racking up debt. Going to the front to pay it off and/or gain title to push up the ladder. Tbh that might as well be diced for at the start of the character gen too rather than waste two or three months of character development and see them die to a hard roll.

I am looking at a variant of the influence system to see what impact that will have for my own game rules.

But the truth about any game is that min/maxing is a thing. It will push players to avail themselves of possibilities to level up. I don't think the mechanics should self scale to a happy bell curve which I take the OP to be about. But opportunities to increase abilities should exist.

[huillaume]

I see little point to trying to homogenize the characters in a game where you can start (as extreme cases) as a very wealthy duc with a goon monthly income or as the bastard of a peasant poor as a church rat.

Of course, this makes several games being played in one ,and while the low SL characters try to achieve a place in society, high level ones might be trying to earn a place in Court, ut that is part of the game as it is.

OTOH, if you want to make the game to give opportunities for evryone to improve to the point of long term (relative) homogenisation, so suces depends more from player long time planning than initial stats, I keep with my earlier suggestion:

Sept 16, 2019 17:02:37 GMT huillaume said:

Suggested new training rules.

Note: beware, this represent a strong deviation from EG!, as it changes quite a lot the development and training rules, probably equalizing the characters with time.

Rationale: as rules stand, the better you are in any field (be it expertise, AA, MA or MdA) , the easier you have to improve it. IMHO, this is quite unrealistic. Along this post, I’ll refer to abilities to refer those fields, as well as STR and CON.

Suggested changes:

Each time you have the possibility to increase some ability, you roll against it (1d6 for AA, MA or MdA, 3d6 for expertise In a weapon , STR or CON). If the roll is higher than the ability, it increases 1 full point. If the roll is equal or lower than the ability, it does not improve, but a +1 will apply for any such roll for this ability until it improves.

Training times should be decreased for balance (e.g. 2-3 weeks for expertise, 4-6 weeks for STR and CON). Schooling (academies or university) are, IMHO, OK with current duration. Not sure about academic increase capping (after all, higher skills will needs months at best)

Example 1: Pierre, has MA 4. While in campaign, he has a BR2. As rules stand that would mean increasing MA by 1. Instead of this, he rolls 1d6, and will improve it on a 5-6. If 1-4 is rolled, next time he rolls to increase its MA he will have a +1 to this roll. If he fails again, the next time he will have a +2, and so on. Once it improves, this DM resorts to 0.

Example 2: Pierre has expertise in rapier 14. He wins a duel, so, instead of increasing it, he rolls 3d6, improving it on a 15+. Otherwise, he will have a +1 for the next roll. Finishing a training in the fencing school will allow him another such roll.

Example 3: Pierre’s CON is 8. After finishing a gym training (several weeks), he rolls 3d6, improving his CON by 1 on a roll of 9+. Again, if unsuccessful, he will have a +1 for the next roll to improve it.

See also that this means a little more bookkeeping, as we have to keep track of both, the DMs and the weeks of training done…

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Nov 30, 2019 9:12:42 GMT gaston said:

Personally, I don't see a problem in players having the option improve upon generation scores.

The problem with original EG! is that if you It is both costly and time consuming - and the alternative is to see characters being purposely killed off in hopes of a better replacement (a different route to homogenisation).

Yeah, I think that shouldn't be removed entirely. One major issue with original EG! is that if you started with a bad Military Ability you were screwed in the only offered career option.

The extra abilities in Sun King were kinda fun, but I can't help but wonder if the extra die rolling they entailed was a factor in the game's demise ?

Extra dice rolling doesn't worry me, but extra math calculatations do! As people know, I already sometimes make mistakes on this and this could compound the issue. Which is why any new abilities are best if they only work in very specific situations.

If progression was made more 'complicated' the 'study must be completed in a single month' rules would have to be dropped, otherwise it would be impossible rather than complicated. (To be honest, the 'study must be completed in a single month' rules don't seem to make much sense anyway...)

I agree with that either way I think. A bonus for studying solidly in a month is better than forcing it.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Nov 30, 2019 10:40:50 GMT Jacques D'Mestos said:

Interesting discussion. Some of the issues I have found in Engarde in all the games I've played have been the following;

- Low sl characters having very little impact on the big picture game. To be expected with the concept of SL but it tends to equate to a two or more tier game where characters just do not interact with each other.

- high SL characters actually being self sustaining quite easily and with very little risk except to other players. At the bottom of the pile it can be difficult to achieve anything due to the risk of the mechanics. It usually involves racking up debt. Going to the front to pay it off and/or gain title to push up the ladder. Tbh that might as well be diced for at the start of the character gen too rather than waste two or three months of character development and see them die to a hard roll.

That's really interesting because my concern has been the opposite to an extent.

Low SL characters have a lot more social mobility, but high SL characters (especially without titles) stagnate. Generally agree though; there's a reason why the other careers have rules that specifically reward players for interaction.

But the truth about any game is that min/maxing is a thing. It will push players to avail themselves of possibilities to level up. I don't think the mechanics should self scale to a happy bell curve which I take the OP to be about. But opportunities to increase abilities should exist.

That strikes me as a good summary of what to aim for. Min/maxing is always going to be a thing. And I don't actually want to stop it; I know some players really enjoy the "game" part of "role playing game" and shouldn't be punished for that.

[Jacques D'Mestos]

Nov 30, 2019 14:18:31 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

That's really interesting because my concern has been the opposite to an extent.

Low SL characters have a lot more social mobility, but high SL characters (especially without titles) stagnate. Generally agree though; there's a reason why the other careers have rules that specifically reward players for interaction.

That wasn't really what I was referring to. Of course high SL characters require a large amount of SPs to continue up the pile, but they're also "almost" immune to bad consequences for example at the front, where their high SL inevitably will be related to high rank, High appointments and low Death roll probability. That's what I meant. Sure there's a stagnation, but that's part of the game. The pole gets slippier at the top end and characters need to work together to mutual benefit. 

And I don't actually want to stop it; I know some players really enjoy the "game" part of "role playing game" and shouldn't be punished for that.

And I don't either. But I would like to see players HAVE to engage in the "role playing" as well. Simply sending in orders to the GM doesn't cut it IMO. Not intending on shaming people here, but we have 21 players listed. I can see posts from 12 of them within the IC communication section. That's not a good ratio. 

[Alain Andre Durant]

Nov 30, 2019 9:12:42 GMT gaston said:

The extra abilities in Sun King were kinda fun, but I can't help but wonder if the extra die rolling they entailed was a factor in the game's demise ?

I can tell you for a fact that this was the case with Parisian Chronicle.

[Yves Eau]

Nov 30, 2019 9:12:42 GMT gaston said:

Personally, I don't see a problem in players having the option improve upon generation scores. It is both costly and time consuming - and the alternative is to see characters being purposely killed off in hopes of a better replacement (a different route to homogenisation).

I have no problem with offering possibilities for improvement, such as the original sword practice, strength training in the gym, or academies, so long as these do not make it much easier for characters with a low score to gain on their rivals.  Giving up weeks to work on an attribute will, of course, give one's rivals time to gain in other areas.

However, I am not happy if a character with low MA can more cheaply improve it at the academy than his more naturally-gifted comrades, and gains a bonus on the battlefield merely for avoiding disaster.  Similarly with weapons expertise: the original rules give everyone below 18 the same opportunity cost for improvement; the house rules here make it harder for a skilful swordsman to improve further.  This kind of bias tends to bunch up the pack: characters are likely to work on their areas of extreme weakness, rather than bolstering their natural advantage, so the initial disparities of chance are eroded.

I would prefer to see a character with low initial MA seek a different route.  One thing I like about the house rules here is that it can be something completely different, such as the church, or artistry.  Even in the standard rules, you could find a way to prosper, by taking a captaincy in a better regiment with a strong commanding officer, for a good chance of loot, MIDs, and title rolls; collaborating with another PC would be highly beneficial, likely bringing more interaction to the game.

I certainly take Gaston's point that some (many?) players would rather send a weak character to die at the front than make the effort, but I do not agree that granting easy self-improvement is the answer.