|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 7, 2022 18:27:24 GMT
<abbr>(Not quoting because proboards can be dumb on that!)</abbr> <abbr>
</abbr> <abbr>I think what you're suggesting is actually what I had in mind; I got confused somewhere along the way! I'm not quite getting some of your calculations, so to make sure we're reading from the same page</abbr> <abbr>
</abbr> <abbr>2xSL to maintain your SL where it is.</abbr> <abbr>
</abbr> <abbr>3xSL is used for the month, with the remainder (positive or negative) carried forward.</abbr> <abbr>
</abbr> <abbr>5xSL to raise.</abbr> <abbr>
</abbr> <abbr>Raising costs 4xSL in SP.
The remainder SP is checked against the earlier 3xSL calculation, with the remainder carried forward.
If I've understood your suggestion that looks good to me!
</abbr> |
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Feb 7, 2022 19:12:47 GMT
What I meant: on the rules as they were, you need SL i nSPs to keep your status, and if so you carry forward any SP over SL x 2. To raise your SL, you need 4 x SL, and that costs you 3 x SL (s oleaving you with SL in SPs), and from there you carry forward any Sp over SL x2 (or take a debit if under that). So, in fact (and to make calculatios simpler for a spreadsheet), you take forward any SP over SL x 5 (I guess that's the part that confused you). If this carrying forward for Grandes is not modified, as SL x 5 is also what (s)he needs to raise SL, it will never incurr in SP debit once raised... Let's put some more examples (keeping with Jack, SL 18 and Pierre, SL 22) Jaques (SL 18): SPs accrued
| Effect on SL
| SPs carried forward
| | 16 | losses 1 | 16
| | 35 | same | -1 (35-18 x 2)
| | 55 | same | +19 (55-18 x 2)
| | 75 | raises 1
| -15 (75-18 x 3)-18 x 2
|
Pierre (SL 22, rules as you suggest (3 x Sl to keep, 5 x SL to raise, no modification on carrying forward ) losses 1 | SPs accrued | Effect on SL | SPs carried forward | | 20 | losses 1 | +20 | | 45 | loses 1
| +45note 1
| | 60 | Same | +16 (60 -22 x 2) | | 120 | raises 1
| +10 (120 -22 x 3)-22 x 2 |
Pierre (SL 22, rules as I suggest: 2 x Sl to keep, 5 x SL to raise, - 4 x SL as raising cost): SPs accruied
| Effect on SL
| SPs carried forward
| | 20 | loses 1
| +20 | | 40 | same | -4 (40 - 22 x 2)
| | 60 | same | +16 (60 - 22 x 2) | | 120 | raises 1
| -12 (120 - 22 x 4 - 22 x 2) | | 150 | raises 1
| +18 (150 - 22 x 4 - 22 x 2 |
I hope this makes it clearer... |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 7, 2022 20:44:02 GMT
I'm not sure there's a difference between our last suggestions unless I'm being obtuse?
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Feb 8, 2022 7:28:20 GMT
The differences are in the 45/40 and 120 SPs for Pierre.
On the 45 Sps one, with SLx3 need to keep the SL, he would lose one SL (but carry forward a goon number of SPs), while in the SPx2 he will keep his Sl, but, as the SLx2 is the limit for carrying forwrd, whe would only carry 1 SP forward (I used 40 SPs instead of 45 i nthe second case to nake him incur on debit. With 45 Sps he would have a +1 SP carried forwards and the situation would be close enough to 60 SP as not being useful).
On the 120 SPs, the effect change is among raising SPs costing 3xSL or 4xSL to count SPs carried forward. With 3x SL, Pierre, despite having only 10 SPs over the raising Sl threshold, he would carry forward 10 SPs. If you use the 4xSL, he will incur on a 12 SP debit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 9, 2022 21:32:39 GMT
Just a few rules now I've seen these ones in action.
Mistresses have a cap of the same SL of their beau or that of their father, whichever is higher.
Because it's now less likely to massively outstrip necessary SL for titles, each +2 above the minimum gets +1 to the roll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 10, 2022 11:37:31 GMT
I think I may have been misleading with my use of "maintain". What I mean is the amount you 'spend' every much before any excess is carried over.
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Feb 10, 2022 13:29:52 GMT
I think I may have been misleading with my use of "maintain". What I mean is the amount you 'spend' every much before any excess is carried over. Oh, I understood the amount of SPs you needed to keep you SL... |
|
|
|
Post by Valerie Valanon on Feb 17, 2022 18:21:50 GMT
Some thoughts on the whole topic...
Social status (i.e. Social Level in EnGarde!-terms) derived in 17th century France more or less directly from the court. But the court is not only His Majesty and the Royal Family, but a good number of other nobles as well. Nobles, who are being assumed as to be necessary for the court in order to represent the concentrated power of France. Without the nobility at court the court´s eminence would be reduced.
Where I am getting at is a possibility to have the players choose for their character either to become a kind of "courtier", making a living of being at the court and rising in social status there. Or to select a life at least partially apart from court, including all the fun of going to clubs, visiting parties, praying at the church, fighting at the front and more, but being excluded from the highest ranks of nobility. Or at least reduce the speed to rise to the highest possible SL.
To rise in status it is necessary for every noble to be seen at court. The more important a noble, the more often he has to be seen at court or he would loose social status. A chevalier is of course not as important as a viscount or a duc, so he is expected to be at court less often than a viscount or a duc. Á noble is expected to be at court a number of seven weeks during a season minus his rank of nobility (i.e. a chevalier is expected be one week at court, a duc 6 weeks). For every week the noble falls short of this requirement, he looses a portion (half?) of his SL in Status Points.
The cap for the ranks of the nobility is imho a good option to cut down a possible inflation of high nobility ranks. With loosing SP for not being at court often enough a noble may choose not to become titled as often as possible in order not to have to visit court that often. Of course he can become titled and be happy with not rising in Social Level that often due to the SP reduction. So the choice is completely in the hands of the players.
|
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Feb 17, 2022 18:46:38 GMT
Á noble is expected to be at court a number of seven weeks during a season minus his rank of nobility (i.e. a chevalier is expected be one week at court, a duc 6 weeks). For every week the noble falls short of this requirement, he looses a portion (half?) of his SL in Status Points. I'm afraid your math formula fails here, as to achieve the (logical) result you say, it would be: a noble must attend court as weeks as his noble status per season. This aside, it seems me a good option... The only problem could be if there are no court events for too many weeks (unlikely, but possible)... |
|
|
|
Post by Valerie Valanon on Feb 17, 2022 21:15:11 GMT
Yes, you´re right. I don´t know how I got the idea of a reversed table...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 17, 2022 21:19:35 GMT
I like it as an idea (especially the focus on player choice) but I'm not sure how much difference it would make to most PCs (Valerie is an exception because of having her title through marriage!)
Generally, high ranking PCs have minister appointments and are already required to attend court.
In terms of court events, I'm definitely going to be playing around with that.
I'm looking forward to it. Working on nerfing current rules is actually far less fun for me than adding new cool stuff for PCs and I'm sure it's the same for most of you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Monique Adelina De'Ath on Feb 17, 2022 21:45:08 GMT
I'd be happy to attend court! I'm a Chevalier but don't get any invites, scandalous as I'm sure His Majesty would love to have a chat with me!
|
|
|
|
Post by Valerie Valanon on Feb 17, 2022 21:56:55 GMT
Yes, that´s a feat for chevaliers to organize once a season an invitation to court. I am sure, Bastian is creative enough to come up with a solution to this problem. Sam may have second thoughts at that point, but "entertaining" is the least to expect from that solution. And I am sure, that His Majesty is not likely to forget any chat with Bastian...  |
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Feb 17, 2022 22:19:34 GMT
Yes, that´s a feat for chevaliers to organize once a season an invitation to court. I am sure, Bastian is creative enough to come up with a solution to this problem. Sam may have second thoughts at that point, but "entertaining" is the least to expect from that solution. And I am sure, that His Majesty is not likely to forget any chat with Bastian... "Your Majesty, I regret to inform you that your beautiful new mistress is Sieur D'Eath in a dress" |
|
|
|
Post by Father William Souris on Feb 17, 2022 22:51:47 GMT
Surely the King and Bastian met when the former lay a sword on the latter's shoulders? i.e knighted him
|
|
