|
Post by Adam de la Bassée on Dec 6, 2019 16:01:12 GMT
Morning everyone.
The logic for my proposal is that the rule is an overbearing penalty to playing the game for low SL characters.
Last month, as an example, I was able to raise my SL but because I was able to exceed the SP requirements I start this month with a Negative 2 modifier; for just playing the game.
For low SL this kind of penalty for playing is fundamentally unfair. We have less opportunity to generate SL as it is, to then say because we played the game last month you have to do MORE this, which inevitably will lead to another penalty for playing at the end of the current month, is unfair and negative to a good gaming experience.
Instead I propose a new system for those who exceed their required SL gain by 150%; a social "Mention in dispatches" of a D3 SP bonus for 6 months (or other agreed timescale) to represent the impact that character had on the Paris social scene that month. At SL10 the roll increases to a D6. These bonus's can be gained every month that the condition is reached.
Example,
Jaque is SL 4. He requires 15 SP to become SL 5. Due to some good gameplay he manages to get 23 SP. This represents 150% above the required SP gain and the GM rolls a D3, scoring a 2. For the next 6 months Jaque receives a 2SP bonus in his orders. I believe under the current rules he would start next month with a +1 SP advantage. (math here is fuzzy, Louis if you could confirm that would be great) Danielle is SL 3. She requires 9 SP to raise to SL 4. Through good play she achieves 12 SP. That represents the required 9 SP but does not trigger the 150% bonus. Under the old system she would start next month at a -2 SP disadvantage.
Duchamp is SL 10. He requires 30 SP to raise to SL 11. Through good play he gets to 47 SP, triggering both the SL increase and the 150% bonus. Rolling a D6 he scores 4, giving him a +4SP bonus per month for six months. Under the old system he would have started the next month with a +2SP advantage for that month only. (Again based on my own reading which may be wrong).
I believe this suggestion satisfies the tests of being simple to understand, achievable at all SL levels, fair and balanced, AND improves the gaming experience of low SL players while not penalizing too harshly those at higher SL levels.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Dec 6, 2019 16:27:35 GMT
Just some comments: Jaque is SL 4. He requires 15 SP to become SL 5. Due to some good gameplay he manages to get 23 SP. This represents 150% above the required SP gain and the GM rolls a D3, scoring a 2. For the next 6 months Jaque receives a 2SP bonus in his orders. I believe under the current rules he would start next month with a +1 SP advantage. (math here is fuzzy, Louis if you could confirm that would be great) For a Sl 4 character to rise his SL he would need 16 SP ,as with Liminal rules you need 4 x current SL (see 5.3), not 3 for next one (as in original rules). See that up to SL 3, this is advantageous for the character... Danielle is SL 3. She requires 9 SP to raise to SL 4. Through good play she achieves 12 SP. That represents the required 9 SP but does not trigger the 150% bonus. Under the old system she would start next month at a -2 SP disadvantage. For the same reason, Danielle would need 12 SPs (in original rules, he would also, as she'd need next Sl x 3)... Duchamp is SL 10. He requires 30 SP to raise to SL 11. Through good play he gets to 47 SP, triggering both the SL increase and the 150% bonus. Rolling a D6 he scores 4, giving him a +4SP bonus per month for six months. Under the old system he would have started the next month with a +2SP advantage for that month only. (Again based on my own reading which may be wrong). Again, he requires 40 SPs to raise his SL... I believe this suggestion satisfies the tests of being simple to understand, achievable at all SL levels, fair and balanced, AND improves the gaming experience of low SL players while not penalizing too harshly those at higher SL levels. OTOH, with this system, if Duchamp accrues 25 SPs, while not increasing his SL, he will carry 10 of those SO (25-(10*1.5)) to next turn, and if then he accrues at least 15 Sp, to the next one too. In fact, with this system, if you achieve a large number of SPs, they wil lcarry over for several turns, while if you don't achieve enought for 1.5 SL, you are likely to carry the penalty only for 1 turn...
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Dec 6, 2019 16:45:16 GMT
e.g.:
In another game I also play, I play Etienne d'Isgrace, a SL 1 Character (Bastard son of a peasant, or, as given in his background, the son of a prostitute in a low Bawdyhouse). He'd need 6 SPs to raise his SL in original rules, while only 4 SPs in Liminal ones.
Last turn (April), after being invited to some parties by a higher SL character, he accrued 19 SPs. As rules there are more like original ones, he raised a SL and begins next turn with 0 SPs. In Liminal, he'd raised his SL and 3 SPs would have been subtracted (3 x SL). Then the remianing over 1.5 his SL (I'll assume rounded down) would have been carried forward to next turn.
So he would have started May with 14 SPs, so guaranteeing him another SL raising (8 SPs), and even would carry on 5 SPs (14-6-3, assuming he does not accrue any in May, as if he does, they would be carried over) for June, where he'd need (being then SL 3) 12 SPs to raise it again...
This would have been a good time to study, practice, or whatever he felt he needed but did not give SPs during those turns...
So, do you still think this system penalizes low level characters? try it with a high level one...
|
|
|
Post by Adam de la Bassée on Dec 6, 2019 18:24:44 GMT
Just some comments: For a Sl 4 character to rise his SL he would need 16 SP ,as with Liminal rules you need 4 x current SL (see 5.3), not 3 for next one (as in original rules). See that up to SL 3, this is advantageous for the character... For the same reason, Danielle would need 12 SPs (in original rules, he would also, as she'd need next Sl x 3)..
Again, he requires 40 SPs to raise his SL... I believe this suggestion satisfies the tests of being simple to understand, achievable at all SL levels, fair and balanced, AND improves the gaming experience of low SL players while not penalizing too harshly those at higher SL levels. OTOH, with this system, if Duchamp accrues 25 SPs, while not increasing his SL, he will carry 10 of those SO (25-(10*1.5)) to next turn, and if then he accrues at least 15 Sp, to the next one too. In fact, with this system, if you achieve a large number of SPs, they wil lcarry over for several turns, while if you don't achieve enought for 1.5 SL, you are likely to carry the penalty only for 1 turn... So for SL 1 and 2 the Lim system is advantageous. After than I agree it does make higher SL players work harder for their SL gains but it also encourages higher SL characters to interact with lower SL characters for the SP they can generate from toadying etc. The whole idea of carrying forward SP is chilling to the game, it rewards none involvement and passive play. It allows higher SL characters to not fully engage and yet still gain SL from minimum interactions. It chills character progression in the mid SL levels as it does not incentivise involvement and community building. In your example of Duchamp, to gain 25 SP at SL10 is not difficult. In fact with Concon2, Mistress, Club, Regimental position, Military Appointment and just club visits all month they will have that number of SL. It is basically a mail in turn. And for that passive non involved play they carry 10SP over to the next turn. Next turn, same mail in even more carry over 20 SP. Turn after that, mailed in turn and he gets SL11. This is rewarding passive play and is chilling to the game as a whole. I would also love to see some form of increased content for 10 SL+ characters outside of the current format as well as a relaxation of the toady SL penalty rules (if not a complete removal). I think there is a question to be asked as to what is the end goal content for the game, do we have a top limit to SL (apart from the intrinsic limitations of SP gain potential. Titles, land, Ministerial positions, Provincial Governors, Field Marshal, Cardinal .. there are many end game positions to aspire to. There is also the inevitable "hey I would like to run a second character" discussion to have when you feel you have maximized the potential of your current character; as well as the other manners of play styles available to players. Now while you may not change sex without a new character you could decide to set aside your worldly goods and become a priest. Or an artist, and if those options do not satisfy let us as a community come together and help create new paths.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Dec 6, 2019 19:18:17 GMT
So for SL 1 and 2 the Lim system is advantageous. After than I agree it does make higher SL players work harder for their SL gains but it also encourages higher SL characters to interact with lower SL characters for the SP they can generate from toadying etc. Toadying with lower SL characters is not more penalized in Liminal than in Original rules... Nonetheless, thre use to be parties hosted by high SL most weeks, and in most of them lower SL characters may attend (unless enemies, of course). This gives the lowe Sl characters some edge. Also high level priests may help in this The whole idea of carrying forward SP is chilling to the game, it rewards none involvement and passive play. It allows higher SL characters to not fully engage and yet still gain SL from minimum interactions. It chills character progression in the mid SL levels as it does not incentivise involvement and community building. I don't see it so bad, as it allows high SL characters to have a hope to raise it, as achieveing the needed SPs in a single turn is quite difficult (unless thre are MiDs or Titles involved, but the former are only for military ones, and the latter single turn events). OTOH, a really passive character might find with negative accrued SPs (something rare, but not unseen). See that if you raise your SL, raising it again next turn is rarer now (unless a really high amount of SPs was achieved), but slow but steady increase is now easier. Not a bad thing, IMHO. In your example of Duchamp, to gain 25 SP at SL10 is not difficult. In fact with Concon2, Mistress, Club, Regimental position, Military Appointment and just club visits all month they will have that number of SL. It is basically a mail in turn. And for that passive non involved play they carry 10SP over to the next turn. Next turn, same mail in even more carry over 20 SP. Turn after that, mailed in turn and he gets SL11. This is rewarding passive play and is chilling to the game as a whole. Let's see Huillaume's case, as he has the same SL than Dechamp: Assuming he was in Paris and had a mistress that gave him 3 SPs, he'd accrue about 21 SPs (9 per Regiment, 6 per club, 3 per mistress. 2 per MiDs and 1 per house) with passive play. Being so high SL also means most toadying will give him only 1 SP, exceptionally 2... Being poor as a church rat makes ConCon a unusual option, as partying too much (but well, the fact having no money hurts is quite alike real life, after all), but OTOH being a Captain of the RFG gives him access to the court (but takes him a week per month, and in some ones he would not be able to be in Paris). Let’s assume with less passive playing he can achieve 5 more SP per turn. This will put him around the 25 SPs you told about, of which 10 will be carried over to next turn. So in about 3 turns he will reach the 40 needed to reach SL 11, but this will not only increase the SPs needed, but lower his mistress ones (as he can hardly expect to raise her Sl too). So, yes, he can keep a slow and steady SL increase over time, but cannot even dream on aggressive raising it several turns I na row, as can a SL 4 (and probably up to 5-6) character. In any case, I guess Huillaume will be quite interested in solial life if he wants to try )or to speed his SL raising), even with characters of slighty lower level... Not that this will be the case of all SL 10 characters, as some will not have the money issue, or don't have access to court, but I guess it can be representative (aside from being the one I can better talk about). I would also love to see some form of increased content for 10 SL+ characters outside of the current format as well as a relaxation of the toady SL penalty rules (if not a complete removal). I think there is a question to be asked as to what is the end goal content for the game, do we have a top limit to SL (apart from the intrinsic limitations of SP gain potential. Titles, land, Ministerial positions, Provincial Governors, Field Marshal, Cardinal .. there are many end game positions to aspire to. There is also the inevitable "hey I would like to run a second character" discussion to have when you feel you have maximized the potential of your current character; as well as the other manners of play styles available to players. Now while you may not change sex without a new character you could decide to set aside your worldly goods and become a priest. Or an artist, and if those options do not satisfy let us as a community come together and help create new paths. I personally don’t see much an issue on this all…
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Dec 7, 2019 9:25:25 GMT
I see the SP carry-forward as an interesting change to the standard rules, and don't see it as a major hindrance or boon. I started at SL4, and made steady progress, much the same as in another game with more traditional rules.
I am a little confused by the debate here, which seems to start out saying a negative carry-forward is a massive penalty, but later suggests the positive carry-forward is too much of a benefit. I feel it has its ups and downs, but overall is fair.
If people are prepared to chip away at each SL over several months rather than make an effort to interact for extra points and faster progress, they are probably not going to become suddenly chatty in the forum because of a different calculation. There is already plenty of incentive to get involved. I don't think the carry-forward rule plays any great part in the decision.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Dec 7, 2019 14:37:05 GMT
A general overview first. While it occasionally may make things harder for players (the rise in SL you mention is the obvious one), in general this system has been working overwhelmingly in favour of them. The occasional negative carryover is a lot rarer than people accumulating SP. That's true of everyone, but especially those of characters with SL 4-7. Below that and it's generally pretty easy to rise regardless. Above that and progression starts to heavily slow. 4-7 are the most likely characters to almost achieve their SP goal but not quite. To move onto specifics: The whole idea of carrying forward SP is chilling to the game, it rewards none involvement and passive play. It allows higher SL characters to not fully engage and yet still gain SL from minimum interactions. It chills character progression in the mid SL levels as it does not incentivise involvement and community building. That is a concern, as it's one of the things the system is actually supposed to be avoid! (Under the original rules, it was very easy to just "park" a character). On top of that, it's supposed to encourage people to play to gain SP in general without having to play the game as a mathematical exercise. One way to change this would be to raise the 'cap' from 1.5 x SL to 2 x SL. That would require people to more aggressively pursue SP. I wouldn't be against that, but I'm more cautious about changes that negatively affect players for obvious reasons. (As an aside, it would make NMRs pretty harsh, but again I don't necessarily have a big issue there) Agree with all of this apart from the bit about toadying. In particular, I think there's a certain level of stagnation at the "high SL but low military rank/no title) level of the game. Happy to hear ideas here, or on the end game. On the toadying, I'm not sure it can really be much more lenient. If Father Adam toadies to Dantes (currently the highest SL character in the game), Dantes is going to lose 1 SP. Obviously, you could remove the penalty entirely as you suggest. But, perhaps counterintutively, I suspect that will actually make interaction less likely. If there's no penalty for toadying to a SL 20 character, why would people at the lower SLs toady with each other at all? To try and summarise my views. I'm against a SP system that's all carrot and no stick, or vice versa. I do think there's something to be said for people to be rewarded for pursuing SPs over the necessary, although the details could be worth looking at mechanically. I have said previously that I'd rather people with concerns about this system saw it in play first and we've now done that. So, if people wanted to move back to the orginal system (1x SL to maintain, 3x to rise, SP reset every month) I wouldn't refuse to do that. However, I think that would definitely need a poll after this discussion moves to a natural conclusion. Also, it would need to be phased in after three turns; I don't want to penalise people who've been accumulating SP under the old system unduly.
|
|
|
Post by Adam de la Bassée on Dec 8, 2019 0:04:20 GMT
To answer two specific points.
First the carrot/stick.
Lim already has the basic "stick" within the core rules, if you fail to make a certain level you lose SL. It has the additional stick of the 4xC requirement for raising your SL. Huill has made a compelling argument concerning this particular stick and the impact it has on higher SL characters. Personally I see this as enough "stick", to further augment it with the stick of negative SP carry over.
I would also point out that I am not removing ALL carry over, my proposal would in fact allow repeated "over" achievers to create a bank of SP very similar to how MiDs work. If for instance you exceed the required SP gain three months in a row you could well end up with nearly 4 months of 9SP free per month. And this rewards active play.
Second, the Toady rules.
I was told in my first game by the GM that toadying does not have to just be about SL. Toadying can be a commercial thing, with the higher SL character accepting the loss for goods, services or crowns. However that game had close to 75 players and 5 GM plus a Head GM.
What I would suggest was that we open the bands by 1 SL. That small a change would make a huge difference especially with our smaller playerbase.
|
|