|
Post by Loic Galopin on Mar 26, 2020 12:49:26 GMT
I've been thinking about play writing, producing, and such. I think someone (I can't remember who, and can't find it now) said that it is too easy to do well just by churning out plays. What if getting a play accepted were more difficult? At the moment - at least according to the rulebook I have downloaded, although I realise things may have changed based on the huge amount of text in this thread - it seems trivially easy to get any old bol... tosh accepted and produced by one of the Companies. Should SL not come into the equation? Can you imagine what would happen if the King himself wrote a play? Wouldn't the companies be falling over themselves to put it on? Whereas if some Jean Comelately peasant turns up on the King's Players' doorstep I'd expect him to be given short shrift. I'm not going to try and put numbers to this, I'm not the best person to do that, but it seems to me that the higher in society you are, the easier it would be to get a play accepted, or even to be seen by someone in a Company able to make that decision. A Patron's SL and collaborators' SL should add into this as well, but again, I don't want to put numbers on it. Perhaps when collaborating, average the SLs? Just use the highest as they become the spokesperson for the whole enterprise? I think this could make it more difficult for "unknown people" (i.e. those with low SL) to get plays accepted, but they could still collaborate with someone of a higher SL. For example, you can imagine a talented, low SL writer "collaborating" with a bumbling oaf who is of a high SL (um, did I mention the King? ) and easily getting a play accepted. The fact the oaf had no creative input to the play is unimportant, the name's what counts. I certainly don't think the numbers should be set such that it is impossible for a (gifted) unknown to get a play produced, just somewhat more difficult than it currently is, where you can get a play accepted two thirds of the time (at least a bawdy one, by the Archduke's Men). Also, I don't think it's mentioned, but I think that submitting and getting a play accepted by a company should be a week's action. Is that the case at present? "Play" in this post means play, ballet, or opera.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 26, 2020 13:00:19 GMT
But how advanced was medical knowledge back then? Thousands of deaths from plague every year in major cities such as London. In 1831 (200 years after the "present time") the Manchester Royal Infirmary used 50000 leeches. High tech it ain't. Believe it or not, but leeches and fly larvae are being used again, at least in some clinical trials. So, they cannot be high tech, but they are effective in specific cases... Even so, by XVII century, surgery (that included many uninvasive techniques still used today as first aid ones) was quite more advanced than medicine proper, though the risk of infection was high, and surgeons were quite more trustworthy than doctors. Basically, what I'm saying is that I really don't think that medical knowledge and treatment are high quality in 1631, so getting a successful first case would be very much luck*. Anyone could try their hand at doctoring, and given luck could build up a nice reputation for it. I don't think it should be easy though, regardless of whether they went to University or not. As I said long ago, Doctors (as lawyers and other such professions, I will talk about doctors, but this can be extensive to lawyers too) use to be regulated by their own professional associations. I suggested then to have a roll tobe accepted on them (in this case, the Ordre des Médicins), and so being considered a doctor. In the meanwhile, they could be asumed to work under the orders of one, as a junior practitioner. * My recent experience with the medical profession has convinced me they're still basically just guessing a lot of the time anyway. I won't go into details, but it seemed to be a lot of "Oh, that didn't work? Hmm. Well maybe that isn't the problem then. Let's try something else.". No real scientific testing at any point, just a fair bit of prodding, and umm-ing and ahh-ing. Maybe the problem is that I'm just a poor peasant, and not a nob who could take himself off to a private doctor. As a nurse, I can say that many times doctors (and nurses too) need to take decisions before having all tests (that are all too often delayed due to lack of ressources). In the meanwhile, yes, there's much trial and error (here's where experience comes to use), though the safety first is a usual practice (so, try it, as long as danger is minimized).
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 26, 2020 13:14:31 GMT
This from the Theatre Scheduling suggestions above: Ok, that sounds good. Not a weekly one, a specific weekly one. You go to the club and it's allowed as part of that action alongside a handful of others. What you're proposing is quite different; that a theatre visit can be combined with any other action. That's not an associated action, that's a free action. No, I'm suggesting that only the first week has a mechanical effect simply for ease of processig. If Bakunin has taught us anything, it's that all rules are artifical constructs. More seriously, you've actually hit on the main issue I have here. There is an arbitary element, but it's not about the theatre. It's the fact that associated actions (that take place within narrow confines and are associated with a specific weekly action) are one thing, quick actions (actions with mechanical effects that can be combined with any other action) are something else. And the latter aren't currently in Liminal and I'd rather they weren't. They add a level of processing complexity to the game, especially when combined with cross referencing (which this would). I've been willing to discuss it in case there's a very very strong reason for them to be necessary in this case. But so far, the main reasons seem to be preference and realism, neither of which are major enough to overcome my aversion. Especially as putting them in here would set a precedent to add them in the future where they make logical sense. (Why can't you pop into church with your mistress on the way back from regimental training? Surely that would only take a Sunday?) At which point I'm hypothetically dealing with eight action turns. There's a reason Liminal doesn't use weekend actions and is never going to. I hope that explains a bit why we feel like we're talking past each other? Your main argument seems to be "this makes sense because going to the theatre wouldn't take that long". Which is valid, but my main argument is "this introduces a new type of rule in Liminal that I am very reluctant to have as an option".
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 26, 2020 13:15:47 GMT
I think someone (I can't remember who, and can't find it now) said that it is too easy to do well just by churning out plays. What if getting a play accepted were more difficult? At the moment … it seems trivially easy to get any old tosh accepted and produced by one of the Companies. Should SL not come into the equation? Also, I don't think it's mentioned, but I think that submitting and getting a play accepted by a company should be a week's action. Is that the case at present? And/or maybe allow influence for acceptance, though having to announce every single manuscript publicly in advance could become tiresome. My hands ache already from scratching with this quill, and I am only on my first play. Maybe professional reputation should count, too. There's far more to that than ability. A writer of consummate skill, but unpublished, is likely to find it harder to convince the editors, players, etc. - who are probably of no more than mediocre talent themselves - than a passable scribe with a long track record. This would make it harder at the beginning, then fame and fortune would come more easily - a better match for military careers, in my opinion. I think this was the idea behind the rules for ability changes on skill checks, but I dislike the existing rules for two reasons, and would rather keep ability and reputation separate. - it is easier to rise from a low level; this can possibly be justified for schooling, but not for professional experience
- I don't see character generation as a reflection of past glories - we are allocated ability, not professional status
If the answer is to treat SL as reputation, I can live with that, although it messes up Yves' long-term plan. It makes sense, and avoids additional record-keeping (though I see that only as the equivalent of tracking old MiDs). Better to know now, if that's how it will be. To answer your question, submitting plays is pre-monthly:
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 26, 2020 13:22:55 GMT
I think the main issue with making play acceptance more difficult is that it makes playwrights find it way harder to find work than other creative careers.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 26, 2020 13:29:32 GMT
I think the main issue with making play acceptance more difficult is that it makes playwrights find it way harder to find work than other creative careers. So nerf the others similarly! I know we have already talked about requiring a minimum ability to turn professional, and/or quality of work to sell, display, etc. If we do that, or maybe even if we don't, I would like to see the rolls for acceptance changed to make it harder for dross, and easier for masterpieces. Currently, the quality of a play has relatively little effect on the outcome. I think that sells writers short, but maybe the rules have been playtested over the years and found to be fair and workable. As with most of these things, I would be happy to do my best to exploit every loophole or weak formula in coming months, then report back, rather than rushing to change it all now. I am afraid my enthusiasm overcame me rather when I first looked at the rules for playwrights and actors, and I wanted to rewrite a lot of it. I would never be allowed to implement changes based on instinct at work. Time for a prolonged period of user testing, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by Loic Galopin on Mar 26, 2020 15:00:32 GMT
I think the main issue with making play acceptance more difficult is that it makes playwrights find it way harder to find work than other creative careers. May well be, yes. I'm more interested in writing than any of the others so concentrated my thoughts more on that side of things, but yes, I think the complaint was that the creative routes generall looked easier, given favourable character creation rolls, than military, and have less chance of one snuffin' it prematurely. As long as you don't lick the paint.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 26, 2020 19:07:54 GMT
Ah, OK. Completely see your point regards the potential for 8 action turns - obviously a no-no.
But my main argument isn't that 'it wouldn't take that long', it's that
'as a weekly action which may not bring in any SPs anyway, no character is going to order a theatre attendance unless it's done in conjunction with the First Night Party,'
In that way, this is similar to the wedding service/wedding reception question. The only characters who get any SPs from the wedding service are the officiating Priest and the Bride/Groom, so if it remains a weekly activity there's no point in any other character going. Obviously it makes more sense to have the service as a quick action coupled to the Wedding Reception (with guests going to the service solely as a RP action). In the same way that, currently, a visit to the theatre can effectively be a quick action coupled to attendance at the First Night Party.
Obviously the wedding service does need to be coupled to the wedding reception - not a problem since attendance at both can be ordered for the same week (even though the former will be pure RP for most characters). But there is no necessity for theatre visits to be coupled with attendance at the First Night Party at all - they can already occur in a different, later weeks.
So - maybe the solution is to de-couple theatre attendances and the First Night Party completely?
Why don't we treat supporting a play (by going to see it) in the same way as supporting a merchant (by buying from his shop) and supporting a Priest (by choosing him as a confessor). In other words, why don't we make going to see a play (which may, or may not, bring in any SPs) a pre-monthly action (which needs no specific week detailing) rather than a weekly action (which does)?
The writer / patron would still need to host a First Night Party in the first week of the month - but they'd have no way of knowing whether any of the guests actually went to the play or not (with the exception of any PC actors, of course) so the GM no longer has to cross reference theatre attendance with eligibility to join the party. Obviously the host hopes his guests went to the play - but there is no longer any requirement for them actually to have done so. It also means that the writer(s) and Patron can host multiple parties to celebrate the play, in different weeks, for different SL bands, without any difficulties - though again, no checks will be made as to whether party guests went to the play and no cross referencing will be required. (Other than the First Night party, any actors are going to be tied up performing the play for the month, so they would not be able to attend any subsequent gatherings that month).
If only one pre-monthly theatre visit per month is possible, then characters will have to play favourites if there is more than one production being staged in any month. If more than one theatre trip is allowed, PCs will be able to support any or all - or be completely mercenary and freeload at any associated parties without actually attending any of the plays.
Most importantly, the GM will no longer have to cross reference theatre visits with anything else. (Obviously it will be necessary to go back and allot SPs - if any - for attendance at successful shows, but this will be required whether theatre attendances are weekly or pre-monthly activities anyway). Won't that make things a lot more straightforward than they are now?
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 26, 2020 20:13:34 GMT
Is this really such a big deal? I frequently have weekly actions dependent on pre-monthly, or previous months. Mostly my own, admittedly, but not always. Allowing low-SL characters to toady only if they pay is allowed, so there is already the potential to require cross-references with another character's orders when working out a party. I have no problem with the pre-monthly theatre idea, but how is it easier, or different in outcome, to linking it to an after-show party (in any week)? As Gaston says, there would be no reason for anyone to go to the theatre unless there is a party, so with the current rules everyone will go on the first night, which causes issues with SL and toadying. If we want the freedom for multiple parties, presumably hosted by a low-SL playwright and high-SL patron to encourage attendance by different levels in society, the party can remain linked to attendance in that week. It would be the existing first night rule, but for any night. Would that not be easier to cross-reference? Playwright's orders: - Week 1: Support the first-night performance of my play; host an after-show party at my club. (The existing first-night party rule.)
Patron's orders: - Week 1: Go to the Theatre Royal to see my protégé's play; attend his after-show party. (The existing first-night party rule: one main action with an add-on.)
- Week 2: Host an after-show party in my club for anyone SL6+ who attended the performance of my protégé's play this week. (One main action, conditional on other characters' actions this week.)
Third Party's orders: - Week 1: Do something befitting a gentleman of my high social standing, like thrashing a peasant.
- Week 2: Go to the Theatre Royal to see the play; attend the after-show party. (An extension to the rule, but still one main action with an add-on.)
Am I totally missing something? This sounds to me like an add-on to a specific event, like carousing, not opening the door for double-action weeks in general. On the subject of after-show parties, what will happen when Yves' first masterpiece is performed? The rules say he has to host a party in his club or house, but he has neither. Would it be held in a bawdyhouse? I can't imagine anyone would come, but that's probably just as well, considering he would be unable to pay for their drinks.
|
|
debreos
Junior Member
Surviving
Posts: 54
|
Post by debreos on Mar 26, 2020 22:46:21 GMT
I think we can try too hard to be realistic. Overall, En Garde is a game, not a full scale simulation. As an example - yes, a theatre visit may only take one evening - so why should it be a week's action? In real life, it is not. However, in real life you would not be able to achieve an increase in social standing through going - it is just an evening's entertainment. Why is there so much benefit in En Garde? Because it is an abstraction. Not only do you go to the theatre - you carefully make sure beforehand that everyone who matters knows you are going, you plan the best way to make an entrance, who to sit next to, what to do at the interval, etc. - and for the rest of the week after the performance you make sure you are seen in all the right places, telling everyone what happened to make sure that the event is recognised. So, the main thing to try to achieve in rules changes is play balance - one way of gaining SPs or money shouldn't be vastly easier than any other. If there is a bit of realism associated with it, so much the better. And I think most of you are trying to do that.
And it shouldn't make life difficult for the GM! Just my penn'orth.....
Regards,
David Waring
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 26, 2020 23:10:49 GMT
In that way, this is similar to the wedding service/wedding reception question. The only characters who get any SPs from the wedding service are the officiating Priest and the Bride/Groom, so if it remains a weekly activity there's no point in any other character going. Obviously it makes more sense to have the service as a quick action coupled to the Wedding Reception (with guests going to the service solely as a RP action). In the same way that, currently, a visit to the theatre can effectively be a quick action coupled to attendance at the First Night Party. Obviously the wedding service does need to be coupled to the wedding reception - not a problem since attendance at both can be ordered for the same week (even though the former will be pure RP for most characters). But there is no necessity for theatre visits to be coupled with attendance at the First Night Party at all - they can already occur in a different, later weeks. I meant to mention this before. I think you've reread the Church Rules. As long as the presiding clergy is at least a Canon (requiring SL 8+) some SP is also gained for guests. I think Yves suggestion works better for me. That avoids two big questions. What happens if regimental enemies meet pre-monthly? Does taking your mistress to the theatre pre monthly count as FC. That makes plays too insigificant I think; it takes them away from being "events" and makes them more like standing orders. That's certainly the case with merchants and confessors. They're pretty much "fire and forget" because of requiring no committment. What do you think of doing this instead: Have theatre visits and parties as an associated action, assuming that there is a party in the week seems to be a good compromise for me. And fufills a lot of your suggestions like multiple parties. I would say the question of whether to allow people in who didn't attend the theatre is probably a party host question. (It's a bit of cross referencing but I think is necessary). Other party holders are allowed to set conditions and IC it's as simple as checking tickets. Unless I've misread it, Gaston's original proposal was that theatre visists could be combined with any other weekly action. We seem to be moving away from it now. Hmm. That's an interesting and unforseen question. In his case, I think maybe he wouldn't hold a party. (Baring a SL rise which wouldn't be too difficult at this stage).
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 26, 2020 23:58:24 GMT
Maybe the first-night rule is as it is to make it harder for a low-SL playwright to have a successful production. We discussed earlier how his standing may be important. I would like to think a great script would attract an audience, but in a time when people were very conscious of class, the toffs would probably prefer an average job by a writer well-known in their circles.
Under the existing rules, a playwright with a patron can have him host the party - one of the benefits of patronage. If the patron is an NPC, presumably anyone can benefit from toadying, as he will not lose SP; if it is a PC, then he must decide whether to accept the loss of SP at the party to increase the chance of a successful production, which would bring its own rewards.
Gaston and I both argued the current rule means no PC will attend theatre other than opening night, but characters do not act only for SPs or other benefits stated in the rules. Do we not sometimes lend our influence to another's cause? Quid pro quo does not have to be all in the mechanics.
As debreos said, making something easier without a compensatory adjustment elsewhere risks changing the balance of the game. Maybe we should park this idea until we see what happens.
My muse is upon me, and my quill assumes a life of its own...
Fall in privates; stand in line. The Captain's coming; he looks fine. As he gestures with his hand, His privates to attention stand.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 27, 2020 1:05:37 GMT
[Edited in view of reading the whole of the above rather than answering in order ] OK, that solves the problem. I've not missed that particular wrinkle in the Church rules, but at the the moment we don't have any PC Canons and, even if we did, 1 SP isn't a particular good return for a week's activity (especially when attending a sermon from said Canon would give attendees 3 SPs each). Wedding guests would still be better off missing the service and just going to the reception if they happen in separate weeks. Until the latest rules draft a) Priests could deliver sermons at wedding services (so attendees got SPs from that too) and b ) Wedding / Funeral services occurred in the same week as the accompanying receptions / wakes. In the current draft rules, neither a nor b is possible any more and as a result, for some obscure reason, both weddings and funerals suddenly take up two weeks of game time rather than just one as was formerly the case. That's the problem right there... Maybe getting SPs for sermons at wedding/funeral services in addition to SPs for the associated party was a bit much, but having the affairs take a week rather than half a month makes more sense. Maybe the best solution - like with March's remembrance service and wake - would be to have the service as a purely RP exercise in the same week, but that would mean that clergymen performing the services would never get any pay or SPs for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by Loic Galopin on Mar 27, 2020 9:13:17 GMT
I think someone (I can't remember who, and can't find it now) said that it is too easy to do well just by churning out plays. What if getting a play accepted were more difficult? At the moment … it seems trivially easy to get any old tosh accepted and produced by one of the Companies. Should SL not come into the equation? Also, I don't think it's mentioned, but I think that submitting and getting a play accepted by a company should be a week's action. Is that the case at present? And/or maybe allow influence for acceptance, though having to announce every single manuscript publicly in advance could become tiresome. Yes I'd see it as a mix of the two: Beware of artists. They mix with all classes of society and are therefore most dangerous. An artist might not be high born, or have titles and the like, but they are able to mix with those who do. In terms of the game it's probably easiest to just consider them to have SL per their reputation. Thanks. It should be a weekly action IMO, but I don't think it's that big a deal.
|
|
|
Post by Loic Galopin on Mar 27, 2020 9:17:10 GMT
yes, a theatre visit may only take one evening - so why should it be a week's action? In real life, it is not. However, in real life you would not be able to achieve an increase in social standing through going - it is just an evening's entertainment. Why is there so much benefit in En Garde? Because it is an abstraction. Not only do you go to the theatre - you carefully make sure beforehand that everyone who matters knows you are going, you plan the best way to make an entrance, who to sit next to, what to do at the interval, etc. - and for the rest of the week after the performance you make sure you are seen in all the right places, telling everyone what happened to make sure that the event is recognised. Okay, makes sense. So should one also be able to carouse, and take a mistress along to the theatre? (It may already be included, I don't have the rules to hand.)
|
|