|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 7, 2019 21:04:45 GMT
If we get lots of these I'll do a FAQ.
|
|
|
Post by mochnant on Jul 13, 2019 21:48:57 GMT
Is it required to announce applications to regiments? Seems like, as a premonthly action in which most new players will apply to at least several regiments to find a spot, there could be a lot of announcements tied to that.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 13, 2019 22:46:46 GMT
Is it required to announce applications to regiments? Seems like, as a premonthly action in which most new players will apply to at least several regiments to find a spot, there could be a lot of announcements tied to that. It is. That one's a bit clunky, so I'm open to alternative ideas. But the main issue there is that influence spend is possible with regiment applications. While it's arguably unlikely that many people will do so, especially negatively, the option is there.
|
|
|
Post by mochnant on Jul 15, 2019 13:23:52 GMT
I've never played in a game that required that, likely due to the clunkiness. I don't think there is any harm in leaving it off the required announcement list. 99% of the time, it is going to be new players trying to get into their first regiment, and I would not, in all honesty, want established players to be harming new ones so early on. For those looking to help, the announcement could be done optionally to seek assistance, or privately to benefactors.
|
|
|
Post by Rhi on Jul 15, 2019 15:48:10 GMT
I already announced mine, and see no harm in it. Surely it'd provide opportunities for player interaction if people know about such things? If someone tries to block my application, that's on them. I may be entirely new to this game but I am perfectly capable of creating consequences for PCs that get in the way of my PCs. As I used to say "all's fair in love, war and roleplay". If a rival is applying for a thing, I want to be able to sabotage that. If an ally is applying for a thing, I want to be able to support that. If I don't know about it, how can I do either?
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 15, 2019 16:01:07 GMT
Broadly, this is the kind of thing where the "living rulebook" clause comes into play. How do people feel about us trying it and removing that rule if it doesn't work?
One meta reason for this as well as Influence is to encourage player interaction. I'm actually pretty pleased with how the game is growing; looks like we should have ten players easy for the launch in August.
But by allowing people to see what regiments other characters are joining I'm hoping that we'll likely see a cluster of people choosing to join similar regiments. It's something of an inelegant fix, but it seems easier than just removing some of the regiments entirely and leaves us more room for growth.
As an aside, it's worth noting that most of the players completely new to En Garde! have a background in parlour LARP and/or heavy backstabbing boardgames. I mostly mention that because I don't want established players to feel they need to go easy on them! Obviously, don't use your knowledge of the mechanics to screw people over, but in terms of social bitchiness etc. I wouldn't worry about them not being able to hold their own.
|
|
|
Post by mochnant on Jul 15, 2019 16:06:54 GMT
It's up to the GM, of course, but has there ever been an En Garde game that required it? I've never seen it before. In my opinion it seems a little strange, considering that there is no limit and it might result in the announcement of applications to every regiment in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 15, 2019 16:13:28 GMT
It's up to the GM, of course, but has there ever been an En Garde game that required it? I've never seen it before. In my opinion it seems a little strange, considering that there is no limit and it might result in the announcement of applications to every regiment in the game. Yes, there has, because I nicked it from elsewhere! I can't remember which game specifically, but I've seen it done before. (Note that in the latter example that's fine. "I apply to every regiment from XXXX down" is a valid annoucement, you don't need to put each separately).
|
|
|
Post by mochnant on Jul 15, 2019 16:17:26 GMT
Broadly, this is the kind of thing where the "living rulebook" clause comes into play. How do people feel about us trying it and removing that rule if it doesn't work? I hope we will keep updating and adding or removing things as the game progresses. With an open ended game I don't see any other option if the game is to grow and mature. One meta reason for this as well as Influence is to encourage player interaction. I'm actually pretty pleased with how the game is growing; looks like we should have ten players easy for the launch in August. Great news! But by allowing people to see what regiments other characters are joining I'm hoping that we'll likely see a cluster of people choosing to join similar regiments. It's something of an inelegant fix, but it seems easier than just removing some of the regiments entirely and leaves us more room for growth. For what it is worth, it will do the opposite for me. At this stage, better to have less competition for the higher ranks, I think. As an aside, it's worth noting that most of the players completely new to En Garde! have a background in parlour LARP and/or heavy backstabbing boardgames. I mostly mention that because I don't want established players to feel they need to go easy on them! Obviously, don't use your knowledge of the mechanics to screw people over, but in terms of social bitchiness etc. I wouldn't worry about them not being able to hold their own. I don't know if that would really work in the long run, though I may be wrong. For now, when there is hardly any influence in play, it's moot. But when there are many powerful characters with influence lying around or even "going bad" would we really want to encourage the powerful to beat up on new players by not discouraging it? I'm thinking this game is fairly niche and is an acquired taste with a small player base. I see interested players as a rare and precious resource to be protected until they can stand on their own. I think that happens organically by nicer players (I know I have been gifted and helped early on my many find folks), but anything we can do to smooth the first few turns out is for the best in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mochnant on Jul 15, 2019 16:19:43 GMT
It's up to the GM, of course, but has there ever been an En Garde game that required it? I've never seen it before. In my opinion it seems a little strange, considering that there is no limit and it might result in the announcement of applications to every regiment in the game. Yes, there has, because I nicked it from elsewhere! I can't remember which game specifically, but I've seen it done before. (Note that in the latter example that's fine. "I apply to every regiment from XXXX down" is a valid annoucement, you don't need to put each separately). At least one, then, though I have played in about half a dozen over the years and this will be the first time I've seen it be required. I think ultimately it will just be announcement spam with little practical effect, but I'm happy to see how it turns out.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Jul 15, 2019 16:51:45 GMT
I hope we will keep updating and adding or removing things as the game progresses. With an open ended game I don't see any other option if the game is to grow and mature. Absolutely. At the moment the rulebook is very much in the "beta" stage, as you'd expect with one with so many house rules. There's definitely things in there on an experimental basis, the rules for female PCs being an obvious example. So none of it should be seen as set in stone. Apart from the setting. I do have a very good Lovecraftian variant somewhere but I'm not running it! I will say that, rules aside, any sign of "hazing" of new players or anything like that are something I'll stomp on incredibly hard. So I think we're reading from the same page there. I do reserve the right to actually ask people for IC justification for influence spend in that situation, although we'd obviously hope it will never arise. This is more for the kind of new player who wants to introduce themselves with letters patronising their social betters. More subtly, I'd think that any player who decides to be a Huguenot is actively hoping for at least some social blowback from that. (And I will warn new players going that route of the possible consequences). In terms of making the game as welcoming for new players, that's the main reason for the offer for me to help with their inital turn orders. By making sure the mechanics don't overwhelm people hopefully they can get into the meat of the game sooner. What we'll do is try it for three months, then I'll reopen the discussion with a poll. That should allow people to get a better idea of how it's working or not working in the game. At that point we'll retain or drop it depending on general feeling.
|
|
|
Post by Rhi on Jul 15, 2019 17:02:12 GMT
Maybe when we expand the player base to include players who are not used to heavy roleplay and a player interaction focus in even their board games, it would be worth being protective of new players, but for me, and for others in the game who joined via direct player recruitment from either myself or Louis XIII, it's not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by mochnant on Jul 16, 2019 0:39:22 GMT
Sounds good, thanks for the discussion!
|
|
|
Post by mochnant on Aug 2, 2019 20:12:54 GMT
Let me know if/when we should start splitting these into new posts....
The rules state that buying a house is a weekly action. It appears that Rooms/Apartments are intended as rentals (judging by the cost). Since we’ve been started with a Room, is moving to a rented Apartment also a weekly action? If so, is there an option to request that we retroactively moved directly into an Apartment (thereby skipping the Room) so as to not waste a weekly action?
Thanks!
EDIT: I do see mention in one of the spotlight help posts of buying an Apartment for 5 livre. Would it be possible, then, for characters of means to have moved directly into an Apartment?
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Aug 2, 2019 21:20:47 GMT
Let me know if/when we should start splitting these into new posts.... At the moment I'm not especially worried. If the same questions start repeating that's when we need to start a new thread! It takes a week to move into an apartment for reasons both thematic and mechanical. To explain: Thematic - Your characters have all just arrived in Paris. While a rented room is easy to find, actually finding a suitable apartment takes longer. Mechanical - Everyone will get the cost break even if they get a new apartment, which makes it very cost effective. - The penalty for not moving up is only 1 SP. This means that it's a net gain of at least 1 SP, more if characters are eligible to move to a higher level dwelling and have the money. 1 SP for a weeks action fits with other weekly actions (carousing, donating at church) and is a lot more cost effective (at least for an apartment). - It's balanced out by the fact that some actions that were originally weekly in the original rules no longer are. Regimental applications in particular. - Obviously, En Garde! is in no way fair or balanced when it comes to character generation! That said, I'm strongly of the view that characters of means already have enough going for them without help! This rule is pretty explicitly in here to give characters with starting financial problems a small safety blanket. It in no way balances it, but removing the necessity to spend a week getting new property would lessen that. - On the last point, it's worth comparing the situation of characters with high and low means on this. High means characters will need to spend a week getting better property. Low means characters will potentially have to join regiments as Subalterns or even Privates, requiring them to spend weeks on regimental actions. Priests require 2 out of 4 weeks spent on Church stuff until they manage to get a promotion. So spending a week on getting a house is still far less restrictive than less fortunate characters have!
|
|