|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Oct 26, 2019 22:29:12 GMT
Now live! Much of this is unexpected. Be aware I haven't sorted out the contents page yet so it's not that accurate. Also, there's a lot of inconsistent formatting but that particular issue is a massive job. The only thing to really look at is that influence from Mistresses is reduced, but now renews seasonsly. Liminal En Garde House Rules 1.2.pdf (672.86 KB)
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Oct 26, 2019 23:46:18 GMT
The only thing to really look at is that influence from Mistresses is reduced, A couple of observations.... 1) This cuts Female PCs off at the knees. The only area where they had an advantage over male PCs was in that they got more influential faster. Now they'll be second class citizens across the board without even any influence high enough to help them secure their own appointments. 2) There comes a point in games where the only favours that really matter are lvl 9s. because everything hinges on who gets to be Minister of State and Minister of War. Having influential mistresses with high SLs was an important factor in these power plays. But not any more. If the highest level favours mistresses can have are lvl 6 they will soon become utterly irrelevant. Sorry, but this proposed cure is far worse than the (theoretical) disease. PCs personal favours renew every season. I've always considered Mistresses (full, original) favours to do the same, BUT presumed that they were only willing to use one of the four on behalf of their beaux each year (using the other three for their own purposes). So, why not rule that PCs and their mistresses must be an item for 3 months before PCs can make use of their favours (either personal, additional or appointment) and then may only use them once per year? That would solve the 'problem' (if it ever actually materialises) without making mistresses (and Female PCs) a total irrelevance. When you said you were reducing Mistresses' influence but allowing it to be used every season I was expecting a reduction of 1 level with the option to combine two seasons' favours (if not used) to get back to original levels with patience. What we have, however, is less a reduction in Mistresses influence than a complete butchering of it. '
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Oct 26, 2019 23:55:37 GMT
I thought the plan was to give each player the mistress's favour only once per year, whilst allowing another player to court her and gain favours the next season. I don't see any need for the three-month courtship (people try hard to impress in the early stages of a relationship), but agree with Gaston that a player gaining additional favours from a long-term mistress every season is OP.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Oct 27, 2019 0:16:48 GMT
I thought the plan was to give each player the mistress's favour only once per year, whilst allowing another player to court her and gain favours the next season. I don't see any need for the three-month courtship (people try hard to impress in the early stages of a relationship), The original idea was for the suitor of a mistress who had already given her influence favours to a previous beaux that year to wait three months, but Sam doesn't seem keen on that and it would probably make record keeping easier to have this across the board.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Oct 27, 2019 2:07:57 GMT
The only thing to really look at is that influence from Mistresses is reduced, A couple of observations.... 1) This cuts Female PCs off at the knees. The only area where they had an advantage over male PCs was in that they got more influential faster. Now they'll be second class citizens across the board without even any influence high enough to help them secure their own appointments. On that specific point at least I think that's easily solvable; we just let female PCs keep the old advancement system. That's not unimmersive for me; by definition female PCs are exceptional cases compared to the rest of the women of Paris. They're "adventuresses" more than "mistresses" and it makes sense they have more impact on Parisian society to reflect that. Technically a Mistress can rise above SL 18, although it's not easy. And if that happened, there's an obvious progression there. But I accept that takes a ridiculous amount of SP at the higher levels. Personally, I don't have an issue with any of that. I do know that several players were of the view they didn't like the fact it felt like you had to "mistress hop" in the original rules. So really that's all I'm trying to solve here. It's possible that on reflection people may decide they prefer that to the potential alternatives in which case I don't have a problem reverting back. Actually, that might work. Should mistresses be able to accumulate influence if it goes unused over a season. With a cap to stop it getting out of hand? What do people think? I haven't thought this one through in terms of balance at all; I'm just riffing off Gaston's comment here. But it would a) allow combination of influence and b) make the less popular mistresses more desireable over time. Generally, this definitely comes under "trying to meet player requests" as opposed to being a "GM's pet rules project". As people get to know me as a GM I suspect the distinction is becoming more and more obvious! So I don't actually have a problem with anyway people want this to run if we can hopefully come to some kind of player consensus or at least majority view. The only issue from my perspective is, as you say, bookkeeping. For obvious reasons I'd really rather not implement a system where Mistress Influence is respawning at different times. It's much easier if I can just track "used" or "not used".
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Oct 27, 2019 10:35:22 GMT
Better than the slashing of mistress influence in the new rules, but still not very elegant - and the book-keeping dimension isn't that attractive. It's what I thought you'd decided upon rather than what I would recommend. OK, so how about refining Huillaume's suggestion a little as follows (on the assumption that the original mistress influence levels are reinstated)? - Characters can use their Mistress' influence (Normal, Influential and Appointment) only once per year, but this actually regenerates at the beginning of each season (like character Personal Influence). - A 'used' column is added to the mistress table which is amended each time a mistress favour is used (by inserting N, I, or A - for Normal, Influential and Appointment). This column is wiped clean whenever the first Greasy Pole of a new season (March, June, September and December) is published. - A record of when mistress favours are used is kept on character's results sheets, so that they can't be used more than once per year. (Presumably you already do this anyway?) Characters courting a mistress with a 'blank slate' however, may use their favours immediately courting is successful. My understanding was that the main complaint was that mistress influence all regenerated at the beginning of each year so that they could soon be 'used up' ? The above addresses that, without too much book keeping. The only problem with it is that characters could court an influential mistress, use her influence, ditch her, court another one, use her influence, ditch her, then return to the original mistress and use her influence again - thus subverting the 'only once per year' stricture. To prevent that, maybe a further column could be added to the Mistress Table - a Blacklist where the initials of any character who ditches her are inserted. Mistresses will naturally refuse any future overtures from those on their blacklist, and may even go so far as to refuse to use their influence to help those characters if requested to so so by their current beau. As to how long characters remain on a blacklist, this could be permanent or, if you're feeling generous, wiped clean at the end of each December (season of goodwill and all that ) I thought it was more not wishing to 'mistress hop' only to find that the mistress' influence for the year had already been used up (which the above addresses)? In practice, the marriage rules (and widespread lack of cash) tend to discourage mistress hopping anyway. They tend to encourage players to secure and keep hold of a desirable mistress (influential, beauty is a bonus, wealth useful for starting characters, but by no means vital), marry them (to make them harder to wrest away) and then get their SL up to level 18 so that their usefulness is maximised. (The proposed Blacklist would discourage mistress hopping too, of course).
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Oct 27, 2019 11:15:42 GMT
How about all of that, but with me keeping the record of influence use private? That's preferable I think; there's certain situations where it would be possible to spot skullduggery by carefully checking the mistress influence.
If the worst case scenario is that you can't use the influence for two months that isn't punishing in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Oct 27, 2019 11:59:58 GMT
Works for me - I take your point regards keeping influence use private. Certainly has much less negative impact than pairing back mistress influence so radically.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Oct 27, 2019 12:08:37 GMT
Cool, I'll we'll revert to the old mistress influence table then, with the new rulse about renewal.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Oct 30, 2019 14:00:17 GMT
Some more (and old) questions , mostly for latter versions: 1) I see you forgot about this (not a necessary change, but would help): Not a new rule, nor a change de per se, but I believe that writing the section number in the index would be helpful, as the page numbers are not too exact (I guess some of them have changed as you added/removed changes).
This way, if not by the page, at least we could find it easier having the section number reference... That's fair and I'll add that to the next version of the rules. 2) I would like to bring it again to bear if my suggestion for rules change about changing regiment were accepted: As you told us you're rewriting the rules, some suggestions (feel free , of course, to add, ignore or modify them)
18.15 (changing regiments): adding as you see fit in the redaction: . As Huillaume changed fro mthe Cardinal Guard to the King's Foot Guards, I'd like to know if the CG are also regimental friends for him (not necessarly being reciprocicated, if the CG feels he abandoned them). I know this puts Huillaume in a curious RPG situation, adn the CG enemies are also his friends now... 3) The DMs in the original rules for the adjountants (and brigade Majors) are not in the Liminal rules. You told me they also apply, but it would be nice to list them for those not having the original rules. BTW, do the aides for General Staff have any DM (none are listed in the original rules)? 4) It would be helpful to explicity in the rules the fact that a Captain may only be Regimental adjoutant or his own Regiment, somethihg not specified in Liminal nor in Original rules (but mostly assumed). While you already said this to be, I feel it would be better to have explicited in the rules, mostly or new players joining and having not followed our discussions. No more questions/suggestions for now, but I don't promise not finding more latter...
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Oct 30, 2019 16:26:11 GMT
1) I do have that on my list to do; indexing is a pain!
2) Ah, yes, that rule is now official. I just forgot to put it in the new rules.
3) Got you.
What do people think on General staff DMs?
4) Again, good idea!
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Oct 30, 2019 17:16:20 GMT
1) I do have that on my list to do; indexing is a pain! See that I'm not asking for a full index (though it would be nice, it's a PITA when you modify it), but just to give the section number in the index as it's now. This way, to give an example, if I know I'm looking for Female Companionship, and I know it's section #8, and I see rule 9.2, I know I passed it. 2) Ah, yes, that rule is now official. I just forgot to put it in the new rules. Nice to know 3) Got you. What do people think on General staff DMs? Original rules give Brigade Majors +1 for death and -1 to plunder, Divisional adjutant +/- 2 and Army adjutant +/- 4. Those are like the ones for their commanders (I guess they assume they are with them), except for the Army Adjutant plunder DM, that is better than his commander ( ). As for aides, if we assume they also stay with their commanders, some likewise DM could be in order, but if we assume they also act as messangers and other such missions, then not having one has also sense, so I'm not sure about they having the sime (or similar) DMs or (at least for death) somewhat reeduced (e.g. 0/1/2 to death respectively, while keeping the same ones for plunder) And I guess an easy one this time
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Oct 30, 2019 17:44:50 GMT
Original rules give Brigade Majors +1 for death and -1 to plunder, Divisional adjutant +/- 2 and Army adjutant +/- 4. Those are like the ones for their commanders (I guess they assume they are with them), except for the Army Adjutant plunder DM, that is better than his commander ( ). As for aides, if we assume they also stay with their commanders, some likewise DM could be in order, but if we assume they also act as messangers and other such missions, then not having one has also sense, so I'm not sure about they having the sime (or similar) DMs or (at least for death) somewhat reeduced (e.g. 0/1/2 to death respectively, while keeping the same ones for plunder) Have I misunderstood something or missed a House Rule? I thought: - the Personal Outcome Table Modifiers for unit commanders gives an army commander +4 for death and -3 for plunder (not +/- 4);
- an aide, adjutant, or Brigade Major receives exactly the same modifiers as the commander.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Oct 30, 2019 18:07:54 GMT
Original rules give Brigade Majors +1 for death and -1 to plunder, Divisional adjutant +/- 2 and Army adjutant +/- 4. Those are like the ones for their commanders (I guess they assume they are with them), except for the Army Adjutant plunder DM, that is better than his commander ( ). As for aides, if we assume they also stay with their commanders, some likewise DM could be in order, but if we assume they also act as messangers and other such missions, then not having one has also sense, so I'm not sure about they having the sime (or similar) DMs or (at least for death) somewhat reeduced (e.g. 0/1/2 to death respectively, while keeping the same ones for plunder) Have I misunderstood something or missed a House Rule? I thought: - the Personal Outcome Table Modifiers for unit commanders gives an army commander +4 for death and -3 for plunder (not +/- 4);
- an aide, adjutant, or Brigade Major receives exactly the same modifiers as the commander.
( Disclaimer: once again, the rules I have access to are 1 st edition, so it may have changed.) The original rules give,as you say, a +4 for death and -3 for plunder to Army commander, but give +4 to death and -4 to plunder to the Army adjutant (maybe a typo fixed in latter editions?). For lower echelons (Brigade, Division), as you say, the DMs for commanders and adjutants are the same. Regimental adjutants have no DMs. The Aides do not appear in the tables, and no comment about them as aplications appear in the notes (or at least I have not seen it), so they seem not to have any DM. Of course, DMs for Ranks are kept in all cases...
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Oct 31, 2019 0:56:28 GMT
I see in a 1975 GDW edition the adjutant is listed separately in the table with -4 for plunder. The later edition I generally refer to has no separate entries for Brigade Major, Divisional Adjutant, and Army Adjutant, but says, "players serving with higher commands use the result and modifiers of that command (i.e. a Division Commander, his Aide and the Divisional Adjutant would all use the battle result of the Division and the table modifiers of a Division Commander)."
|
|