|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 7, 2020 23:05:52 GMT
It would fix the problem.
The proposed new rule is that you'd improve if you get a check result of 7 - your skill, so it would be 2 for Skill 5.
It would help people below that level.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 7, 2020 23:58:20 GMT
It would fix the problem. The proposed new rule is that you'd improve if you get a check result of 7 - your skill, so it would be 2 for Skill 5. It would help people below that level. Oh, OK. I read you wrong (again). I guess I was to used to the old one...
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 8, 2020 4:49:06 GMT
It would fix the problem. The proposed new rule is that you'd improve if you get a check result of 7 - your skill, so it would be 2 for Skill 5. It would help people below that level. Oh, OK. I read you wrong (again). I guess I was to used to the old one... See, though, that in this case even a result of 6 would increase the skill level if it was 1 (even though it would be decreased at the same time due to the result, I guess)...
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 8, 2020 10:52:57 GMT
Something I'm considering doing that's related to this. With the old Skill 5 problem. How about if skill increase happens if your SCR is 7 - your current ability or less. (As opposed to less, which is what it is at the moment). That would make raises at lower levels more likely and go some way to ofsetting the possibility of losses. What do people think? Related, but doesn't really address the Doctors/Lawyers problem, which is their low starting skill levels. OK, following the above, and taking into account that at low skill levels it is possible to go up a Skill notch by this which is then lost by having a SCR or 5 or 6, and also the 0.25 rise for getting a SCr of 1, the chances of improving skills now look like this skill increase happens if your SCR is 7 - your current ability or less. SkL 1: SCR 6 or less 50% SkL 2: SCR 5 or less 50% SkL 3: SCR 4 or less 66% SkL 4: SCR 3 or less 50% SkL 5: SCR 2 or less 33% SkL 6: SCR 1 or less 16.5% SkL 7: SCR 1 16.5% SkL 8: SCR 1 33% SkL 9: SCR 1 33% SkL 10: SCR 1 50% Although Skill 5 now has a reasonable chance of a skill rise (one third), there is an obvious bottleneck where skill levels are 6 and 7 are concerbed Rather than trying to fix this by saying SCRs of 1 and 2 at skill levels 6 and 7 gain a skill rise (which would give Skill level 7 a 50% chance of improvement) how about a radical rethink (which will make things a lot easier to work out too). I suggest we ditch the (7-SCR) / (SCR 7 - your current ability) stuff and and skill rises on SCR 1 and replace it with something far simpler: This gives a 33% chance of a skill rise across the board, at low, medium and high skill levels, without the need of any complicated table searching and die roll conversions.
|
|
|
Post by ToH Player on Mar 9, 2020 11:18:06 GMT
This sentence seems unfinished... It looks to be from the Time of Honour rules and should read :
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 18, 2020 13:55:51 GMT
Since it looks like we are shortly going to have a PC actor it struck me that if only PC written / produced shows are available to act in, he is not going to have much to do. Consequently I've drawn up a suggested rules addition below. (The names of the Ambassadors are comic ones from Time of Honour and may need changing) : 35.4 Theatre Royal SchedulingUnless a PC hires the Theatre Royal and a Private Theatre Company to perform a self-penned production (or a private company hires the theatre for a month), then the slots at the Theatre Royal are divided between the three Established Companies as follows: King's Men: January, April, July, October Duke's Men: February, May, August, November Archduke's Men: March, June, September, December PC's cannot usually attend any of these NPC productions or the associated first night parties (sold out ). They only come into play if any PC Actors are members of the performing company. If that is the case, then further details are worked out with 1D6 rolls as follows: etc. If a work written by a PC is accepted by one of the three established Companies of Players then it will be performed in their next available slot at the Theatre Royal as above (though the writer(s) and or Patron(s) of the work will be responsible for providing any beautiful mistresses, lavish props and the First Night Party). The same is true if one of the established companies is hired to stage a PC production which they have previously rejected (though the writer will also be responsible for covering the cost of theatre hire in this case). If a new company hires / is hired for the Theatre Royal, however, they will 'bump' the established company for the month in question after which the usual schedule will resume. Any company so bumped will view the bumping company in the same way as the King's Men view the Duke's Men thereafter. ------------------ Also, if the above is adopted, then 16.6 If a work is accepted by a Company of Players, the writer(s) will be paid 70 Cr for the work should be amended to 16.6 If a work is accepted by a Company of Players then it will be performed in their next available slot at the Theatre Royal (see 35.4 Theatre Royal Scheduling). The writer(s) will be paid 70 Cr for the work I have started looking at the rules for playwrights. As Gaston pointed out, before this suggested change actors were dependent on playwrights. The amendment makes life easier for actors, but harder for playwrights, who may now have to wait longer to see their masterpiece performed, and reduces our (declaration of personal interest!) influence on the game. Just a minor, selfish niggle. I really don't like the bit about lasting rivalry between companies if they are bumped by a privately-produced play. That could really mess with a playwright's livelihood, as he can never again sell a work to a company if he switches to a rival. Overall, though, I think this will work well for the thespian community. We shall hopefully soon have opportunities to find out, with a couple of right luvvies newly come to Gay Paris.
|
|
debreos
Junior Member
Surviving
Posts: 54
|
Post by debreos on Mar 18, 2020 14:38:04 GMT
Now I'm off to the Front, that section of the rules has just become more relevant - so, oddly enough, I've reread it. Firstly, are you updating the draft on a regular basis, or waiting until you have assembled all the changes before redoing it? If the former, it would help if you could set up a thread pointing to the current edition - if you post a new message and link each time it is revised, everyone can work to the current version.
Anyway - on Page 76 you have the table for increases in MA through Battle. The table reads: MA less than (7-BR) +1 MA 6+ and BR=1 +1 MA 6+ and BR=2 +0.5 There is an anomaly with the first line. If I have an MA of 5 and got a Battle Result of 2, I would not get an increase in MA, whereas if I had an MA of 6 it would go up by 0.5.
Should the first line read "MA less than or equal to (7-BR)"? That way, on a Battle Result of 2 you get a +1 MA with MA5.
I'll keep reading....
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 18, 2020 14:45:27 GMT
Now I'm off to the Front, that section of the rules has just become more relevant - so, oddly enough, I've reread it. Firstly, are you updating the draft on a regular basis, or waiting until you have assembled all the changes before redoing it? If the former, it would help if you could set up a thread pointing to the current edition - if you post a new message and link each time it is revised, everyone can work to the current version. Plan at the moment is to get all the minor changes (stuff that's non controversial) into a new draft, release that, then look at the major rule changes being suggested. Should have more time to do that now. Sadly, coronavirus has kicked my business in the teeth so I suddenly find myself with a lot of spare time... That's definitely being looked at. As a stopgap, anyone with an ability of 5 geting a SCR of 2 will gain ability.
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 18, 2020 17:38:48 GMT
24:10 Staff Commands
Military sppointments table:
The number of available positions for the apointment of Division Commander is shown as 1/Army. Shouldn't it be 1/DIvision?
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 18, 2020 18:52:37 GMT
Alternative Pistol Duel system (11):Each player rolls his Pistol ability as any skill. On a result of 1, a solid hit has been attained, on a result of 2, a limb hit is achieved. A result of 5 is a misfire, while a result of 6 a catastrophic failure. Modifiers to Pistol Ability (all cummulative. Minimum: 1, Maximum: 10): - At 6 paces: +1
- At 20 paces: -1
- At 30 paces: -2
- Each round aiming: +1
- Target Flinching or Ducking: -2
This would make them more homogeneous with other abilities or skills use. The rest of rules would remain as they are. Example: Renée (PA 5) and Etienne (PA 3) have decided to fight a Pistol duel at 20 paces. So, effective skills are 4 and 2 respectively.
Ettiene has decided to fire after 3 round of aiming, while Renée with ho delay. So, Renée will fire on round 1, and if he achieves a result of 2 (he cannot achieve a 1 with effective skill 4), he would hit and the duel is over. If not, Etienne will fire at him with an effective skill 5. If no one hits, they may either recharge or leave it as a draw.And now some questions (I didn' find in the rules): - Can Pistol be trained?
- If so, how?
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 18, 2020 23:41:28 GMT
Please can I check I have understood correctly the requirements to write plays, operas and ballets?
My understanding is that anyone can try to write a play, but is likely to do better if their Admin skill is higher. So, even a character with Admin 1 has a 50% chance of success (Average Job or better).
However, for an opera or ballet, you must have Admin 5+, then roll a skill check based on your Music or Dancing.
So, if you have Admin 5 and Dancing 1, you can create a ballet. More Duck Pond than Swan Lake, perhaps, but you may be keen to impress the King's Players and reluctant to collaborate.
On the other hand, if you have Admin 4 and Dancing 7, you are not allowed even to try.
Is that right? It does not seem fair.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 19, 2020 0:34:44 GMT
> My understanding is that anyone can try to write a play, but is likely to do better if their Admin skill is higher. So, even a character with Admin 1 has a 50% chance of success (Average Job or better).
Correct. That's why I suggested that Neophyte status require 3+ in the relevant skill rather than securing Average Job or Better. ( See (Artistic) Professions above).
> However, for an opera or ballet, you must have Admin 5+, then roll a skill check based on your Music or Dancing.
No, to write an Opera you need Admin 5 and Music (against which the check is made). To write a Ballet you need Music 5 and Dancing (against which the check is made).
> So, if you have Admin 5 and Dancing 1, you can create a ballet.
No, you'd need Music 5 and Dancing 1 (Agreed that it's not something anyone with two left feet - ie Dancing 1 - should really be attempting).
> On the other hand, if you have Admin 4 and Dancing 7, you are not allowed even to try.
Correct, because Admin doesn't figure in Ballet at all. And if you had Music 4 and Dancing 7 you wouldn't be allowed to try either.
> Is that right? It does not seem fair.
I suspect it's written that way to encourage collaboration. I agree that needing Admin 5 to write operas but only Admin 1 to write plays does seem a little strange. I expect the original rule writer was assuming that characters would get up to Admin 7 before writing plays to avoid slipping backwards? Maybe the rules should be changed to
To write a play a character must have Admin 5+, against which a skill check is made.
To write an Opera a character must have Admin 5+ and Music (against which the check is made) of 5+.
To write a Ballet a character must have Music 5+ and Dancing (against which the check is made) of 5+.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 19, 2020 8:57:27 GMT
Thanks, Gaston. I misread the requirement for ballet, but my main point remains: it is far too easy for someone with no skill in a particular field to produce a successful work. I agree with Gaston that a higher level of skill should be required for any kind of professional endeavour. I would go so far as to suggest 4+, being above average. I don't like the idea that someone with only a passing ability (3) at art can expect to produce at every sixth attempt a "Very Well Done" piece, which can be bettered only by a skilled craftsman (6). Alternatively/additionally, I feel the chances of "success" (average job or better) are not sufficiently influenced by ability. A character with ability 10 (the supreme master of his craft) has only twice as much chance of pulling it off as one with ability 1. This is like saying an illiterate fool could produce one successful play for every two penned by the Bard himself. Granted, they would tend to be of a lower quality (though one in eighteen would match him - how many monkeys with typewriters?), but they would still be accepted by the masses as evidence of his professional worth. I would start with a much lower chance at ability 1, making it a real long shot for an oaf to make any kind of impression. If we impose a minimum requirement, will the skill checks still be required at lower levels? I saw a suggestion to use them for pistol duels, where at least one party may well be unskilled, but I would suggest it is not unreasonable, in the case where an ability 1 finds himself facing looking down the barrel of an ability 10, the outcome should be pretty much certain. Ability | Chance | 1 | 50% | 2 | 50% | 3 | 67% | 4 | 67% | 5 | 83% | 6 | 83% | 7 | 100% | 8 | 100% | 9 | 100% | 10 | 100% |
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 19, 2020 9:03:50 GMT
I agree that needing Admin 5 to write operas but only Admin 1 to write plays does seem a little strange. I expect the original rule writer was assuming that characters would get up to Admin 7 before writing plays to avoid slipping backwards? Maybe the rules should be changed to To write a play a character must have Admin 5+, against which a skill check is made. To write an Opera a character must have Admin 5+ and Music (against which the check is made) of 5+. To write a Ballet a character must have Music 5+ and Dancing (against which the check is made) of 5+.I would support that, as a simple way to address the main issue. On the "slipping" point: you cannot lose ability if you are at 1, but you have a 2/3 chance of gaining 0.25, just for scrawling unintelligible rubbish on a mouldy scrap of food-wrapping. What utter nonsense! Why bother studying at university, when you can learn on the job, and have a decent expectation of income to boot?
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 19, 2020 9:29:44 GMT
(Artistic) ProfessionsLooking at the rules regarding artists, musicians, playwrights and actors (includes opera singers and ballet dancers) vs doctors and lawyers it's clear from the outset that the latter pair are going to have an incredibly more difficult time of it. etc. Finally, while those in the artistic professions are positively encouraged to progress in two (or more) of them (though only gettng benefits from the highest), doctors and lawyers (although being able to dabble as 'gifted amateurs') cannot progress as artists at the same time as operating as medical / legal professionals. Why not? The famous French playwright / actor Moliere worked in the legal profession before taking up the theatre full time. Why not characters in Liminal? Since both medicine and the law require a large body of concrete knowledge rather than the natural gifts required by the arts, however, why not say that characters can't operate in both of those fields at the same time instead? Not being able to operate as a doctor and lawyer at the same time makes much more sense to me than not being able to operate as a lawyer and a playwright or as a doctor and musician. Doctors and Advocates can already write plays (rule 37.1), and sell or produce them to make money on the side. I do not understand how you think they are missing out. Are you suggesting Doctors and Advocates should be able to receive pay and status as artists etc. (section 35)? That would give them an advantage, as other professions, as you say, benefit only from one.
|
|