|
Post by gaston on Mar 19, 2020 10:07:21 GMT
> Why bother studying at university, when you can learn on the job, and have a decent expectation of income to boot?
Indeed so - and I think you've opened another loophole there...
The Archdukes Men will accept a play on 4+, and the chances are increased to 2+ if it's bawdy. That means that even a 'Terrible Mishap' has a 50% chance of being accepted while a piece getting a 'Could Have Been Better' (which also adds negatives at the performance stage) has a 66% chance of being accepted. So even someone with Admin 1 could spend 2 weeks each month writing bawdy plays and be assured of an income of 35+ plus livres per month...
Rather than applying 'Any +/- SPs from the Skill Table when the Skill Check for writing the work' to the acceptance roll across the board, shouldn't we say that companies will automatically reject any piece not securing a 'Average Job' or better result at the writing stage? If I was running a theatre company I certainly wouldn't knowingly accept a poor piece - especially when there's a chance that even a good one won't put enough bums on seats to turn a profit...
Of course, that won't stop more skilled playwrights churning out average plays as a cash cow, and what happens if (for the sake of argument) the Archdukes Men have accepted 4 bawdy plays when their next rehearsal slot comes around ? Which one do they perform? I suggest that rule 16.6 is amended as below to cover this eventuality (and also to encourage playwrights to compose / submit the best works possible).
16.6 If a work is accepted by a Company of Players, in the month of the performance the writer(s) will be paid 70 Cr for the work and 10% of the profits from the production (if any). The Company will themselves pay the basic costs for the staging of the work, provide the services of a professional producer, and hire the Theatre Royal as below (as well as take the majority of the profits). It is up to the writer and/or his patron to provide any lavish props (though they get a further 10% of the profits for each 100Cr thus spent) and any beautiful mistresses to embellish the production. The writer (and his Patron) still get the SPs (or lose them) depending upon the success of the production, however, and the writer(s) still has to attend the two weeks of rehearsals (so as to be on hand to do corrections and amendments). If the company has secured options on two or more plays/operas/ballets at the time their next rehearsal slot comes around, then the piece they put into production will be the one which secured the best result at the writing stage. If two pieces have the same result, then the one which secured the highest die roll at the acceptance stage will be the piece put into production. If this still results in a tie, then the GM will use further die rolls to determine the final outcome.
[In answer to your last point, Yves, it's already a rule that if characters have two or more professions, they only get the SPs / pay from the one in which they have the highest rank.
As to the other point, it's currently possible for a character to operate as _both_ a Doctor and Lawyer (which doesn't seem credible to me), but not in one of these professions alongside an artistic one (which doesn't seem credible either). Progression in an artistic profession is a lot easier than in a 'learned' one - which puts Doctors and Lawyers at a distinct disadvantage at the moment. The suggested changes in the (Artistic) Professions post would effectively allow some artists to practice law or medicine on the side...]
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 19, 2020 14:14:13 GMT
I am paying attention to all of these posts, but I think priority is the SCR issue and theatre rules. So if people approve of these they can be considered live before the new rulebook goes out.
For SCRs:
I suggest the following.
We go with Gaston's suggestion of improvement on a roll of 5 to 6, up to Ability 7. After that it needs a 6. The "lose Ability for poor rolls" is removed.
My thoughts there:
The higher echelons should be harder to reach. Characters with an 8 in an ability should be rare and special. Someone with 8 is the best person in Paris, 9 is the best in France and 10 is recognised worldwide for their genius.
What do peopel think?
|
|
|
Post by huillaume on Mar 19, 2020 14:27:20 GMT
My thoughts there: The higher echelons should be harder to reach. Characters with an 8 in an ability should be rare and special. Someone with 8 is the best person in Paris, 9 is the best in France and 10 is recognised worldwide for their genius. What do peopel think? I fully agree here. level 10 would be sheakespeare or Lope de Vega. To this end, I'd recover my old suggestion (to be applied for those skills as MA and AA are suggested there): Suggested new training rules.Note: beware, this represent a strong deviation from EG!, as it changes quite a lot the development and training rules, probably equalizing the characters with time. Rationale: as rules stand, the better you are in any field (be it expertise, AA, MA or MdA) , the easier you have to improve it. IMHO, this is quite unrealistic. Along this post, I’ll refer to abilities to refer those fields, as well as STR and CON.Suggested changes:Each time you have the possibility to increase some ability, you roll against it (1d6 for AA, MA or MdA, 3d6 for expertise In a weapon , STR or CON). If the roll is higher than the ability, it increases 1 full point. If the roll is equal or lower than the ability, it does not improve, but a +1 will apply for any such roll for this ability until it improves. Training times should be decreased for balance (e.g. 2-3 weeks for expertise, 4-6 weeks for STR and CON). Schooling (academies or university) are, IMHO, OK with current duration. Not sure about academic increase capping (after all, higher skills will needs months at best) Example 1: Pierre, has MA 4. While in campaign, he has a BR2. As rules stand that would mean increasing MA by 1. Instead of this, he rolls 1d6, and will improve it on a 5-6. If 1-4 is rolled, next time he rolls to increase its MA he will have a +1 to this roll. If he fails again, the next time he will have a +2, and so on. Once it improves, this DM resorts to 0.
Example 2: Pierre has expertise in rapier 14. He wins a duel, so, instead of increasing it, he rolls 3d6, improving it on a 15+. Otherwise, he will have a +1 for the next roll. Finishing a training in the fencing school will allow him another such roll.
Example 3: Pierre’s CON is 8. After finishing a gym training (several weeks), he rolls 3d6, improving his CON by 1 on a roll of 9+. Again, if unsuccessful, he will have a +1 for the next roll to improve it.See also that this means a little more bookkeeping, as we have to keep track of both, the DMs and the weeks of training done… Of course, the increase might be lower than 1 full point, if you still see it too easy...
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 19, 2020 14:36:28 GMT
For SCRs: I suggest the following. We go with Gaston's suggestion of improvement on a roll of 5 to 6, up to Ability 7. After that it needs a 6. The "lose Ability for poor rolls" is removed. My thoughts there: The higher echelons should be harder to reach. Characters with an 8 in an ability should be rare and special. Someone with 8 is the best person in Paris, 9 is the best in France and 10 is recognised worldwide for their genius. What do peopel think? The simple 5/6 proposed here is the same for everyone, so does not tend to close the gaps - until people hit the glass ceiling (proposed here at ability 7). I am in favour, though I would make it 6 only regardless of ability, to keep the ignorant masses in their place. I don't like the current rules because they make progress easier when you have less ability. In my view, rolling a 1 in character generation indicates a clumsy oaf, tone deaf, idiot, etc. Those characteristics bring challenges. Having them eroded each time you take on a task, merely because your incompetence does not kill you, makes life too easy. I think anything above 6 should require some seriously hard graft. Four weeks at the University? That's about long enough to be on first name terms with the barman. I always assumed a character lucky enough to start with a 6 was both naturally gifted and well-schooled; it should not be the starting point for an education. As a new character with a six he is considering improving, this is not self-interest; rather, having looked at what was required, I felt the money and time to improve was far too little, and made alternative careers way more attractive than the military which is supposedly still at the core of the game. As an aside, my calculations indicated that the benefits of higher ability are not so great as I had expected, so perhaps I should soften my opposition to allowing easy improvement. I would rather make improvement difficult, yet worthwhile. Vive la difference!
|
|
|
Post by Loic Galopin on Mar 19, 2020 14:45:38 GMT
I suggest the following. We go with Gaston's suggestion of improvement on a roll of 5 to 6, up to Ability 7. After that it needs a 6. The "lose Ability for poor rolls" is removed. I'm unclear which suggestion you are referring to, here. liminalengarde.proboards.com/post/2022 ?
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 19, 2020 14:51:48 GMT
That's the one.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 19, 2020 15:04:49 GMT
]The simple 5/6 proposed here is the same for everyone, so does not tend to close the gaps - until people hit the glass ceiling (proposed here at ability 7). I am in favour, though I would make it 6 only regardless of ability, to keep the ignorant masses in their place. I'm not necessarily against making it 6 only; it really comes down to how quickly we want people to progress. I think this may be one for a poll after we thrash out the arguments. Especially after having seen the numbers, I agree with you. I think we definitely need the rules to change. That's a complicated one. In terms of simulation, progress is way too fast both naturally and through education. But there's the counterargument of playability. Realistically progression should take a 2 year course but that's not fun! The main reason I was looking as 7 as the cap for standard progression is it's the level that gives characters a 50% chance of success. To explain my thinking on that, I absolutely don't want to devalue the military career, but the goal is that it's less "core" and more that it's a viable career among others. There are several advantages there still. MiDs are one and loot is the other. There's a more subtle one in that characters forced to the front by debt etc. are going to join as Privates if they aren't military (which is a probable death sentence). That said, it's still entirely possible the pendulum has swung too far in the otherr direction in which case ideas to make military more desireable are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Ymbert Montgomery on Mar 19, 2020 15:33:55 GMT
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. Should we possibly look at only having 2 NPC productions per company? Screws other playrights less but does still allow actors to find work.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 19, 2020 16:36:45 GMT
The effects of the 5/6 method proposed (apart from greatly simplifying things, in stark contrast to Huillaume's counter-suggestion) in comparison to the current system are that
Improving Skill levels from 1 through 4 is harder (even if skill reductions are no longer in effect) Improving Skill levels from 5 through 6 is the same Improving Skill levels from 6 through 7 (the current bottleneck) is easier Improving Skill levels from 8 through 9 is the same It's impossible to improve skills over 10 so that line is irrelevant.
Reducing chances from Skill Level 7 upwards from 5/6 to 6 alone effectively nullifies all the above. Improvement at low levels is still harder, the bottleneck at Skill 7 remains, and it's also harder to improve at high skill levels too.
Effectively, what we are looking at is a huge double whammy at both the top and bottom ends whilst maintaining the current bottleneck. :-(
Let's just look at what the figures mean in game practice. Using 5/6 means that for every three works, on average, the practitioner gets a skill rise of 0.25 - so it takes 12 works on average to rise a full skill point. Completing a work takes a minimum of 2 weeks, so that's 24 weeks of game time (or 6 game months) to rise a skill point. But characters have to keep an eye on their status and social life at the same as completing works, so we can say that 24 weeks of other activities will run alongside the 24 weeks completing works so that effectively, at 5/6, it will take one year of game time to rise from Skill 7 to Skill 8.
This is in comparison to the 4 - 6 weeks of study it takes to rise a skill point up to 7. You can see that after 7 the higher levels would already be difficult to reach at 5/6.
If you reduce chances from 5/6 to 6 alone, however, you double this, meaning that it takes 2 years of game time to increase a skill from 7 to 8. Isn't that effectively saying that no-one in the game can realistically hope to get a skill level over 7 and, if this is the case, why bother to have skill levels of 8+ in the game at all ?
...and, in the process make it just as difficult to rise at low levels (two game years per skill point) as Sam's proposed amendment would do at high skill levels. Turns the idea that it should be more difficult after 7 on its head doesn't it ? And pretty well guarantees that all skill rises will be through learning alone until Skill Level 7.
The 5/6 suggestion wasn't just pulled out of hat. It was carefully chosen to make skill improvements difficult, but nevertheless possible. All due respect, but realistically the suggested amendments to only 6 giving a 0.25 skill rise just makes them effectively impossible.
On the same subject, the biggest disadvantage the military have is in improving MA. At the moment it's possible to shell out a fortune at the Military Academy and have absolutely nothing to show for it. I'd suggest the Military Academy rules be changed to fall into step with those of the Medical/Law Schools.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 19, 2020 17:28:34 GMT
Maybe it wasn't clear, but this refers to a privately produced play performed by a new (ie privately raised) company. If an existing company is hired to stage a privately produced play they will do so in their next scheduled slot (and since they are being paid, this will bump any optioned pieces from other PCs, if any, for that month). Not sure what you mean by that? 2 NPC productions per company per year ? I don't really see how it would screw other playwrights? If they have a play accepted by any of the companies obviously this will 'bump' any NPC productions. I wasn't going to bring this up until the current rules were up and running (Helen would quite like to be - maybe joint - owner of a rival theatre at some point ) but the real bottleneck is the fact that there is only one theatre in Paris at the moment. How about allowing PCs to purchase a disused Jeu de Paume court (how most Paris theatres seem to have started, same purchase price and running costs - and maybe SPs? - as a Small Mansion), spend an extra 250 Livres converting it to a theatre, and then hire it out for private productions - staged either by one of the established companies outside their Theatre Royale months, or by a newly raised private company? The current rules for Private Theatre Companies mean that they will have to stage two productions per season in order to be viable - which is going to make one or more alternatives to the Theatre Royale absolutely necessary. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9%C3%A2tre_du_Maraiswhich provided the inspiration for this. Also the map detailed is one of the best of Paris I've seen in terms of being able to read street names etc. It's on Wiki Commons and can be downloaded from here commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1652_Gomboust_9_Panel_Map_of_Paris,_France_%28c._1900_Taride_reissue%29_-_Geographicus_-_Paris-gomboust-1900.jpg [Looks like you'll have to copy the above line then paste it into the address line of your browser, since it won't link automatically ] Well worth it, but make sure to download the highest resolution version. Slightly later than our timeline (1652) but nice details on colleges, academies, maisons (Mansions) and Ho(s)tels (Cheateaux). Interesting to find out that the Horse Market on the Right Bank (left hand edge of the bottom centre panel) was held on Saturdays whilst the Left Bank horse market (top centre of the top right panel) was held on Wednesdays too
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 19, 2020 20:35:14 GMT
On the same subject, the biggest disadvantage the military have is in improving MA. At the moment it's possible to shell out a fortune at the Military Academy and have absolutely nothing to show for it. I'd suggest the Military Academy rules be changed to fall into step with those of the Medical/Law Schools. From my recent experience, the huge disadvantage of pursuing a purely/predominantly military career is the cash flow. Sure, you can rake in a fortune in a lucky month at the front, but you have to put your life on the line, generally commit to several months away from personal and social development, and it's mostly a matter of luck, even which kind of battle you fight. The army is no place for someone who likes to manage risk and return. Sitting in my apartment writing plays looks a whole lot safer, sustainable, and controllable.
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 19, 2020 20:46:54 GMT
Maybe it wasn't clear, but this refers to a privately produced play performed by a new (ie privately raised) company. If an existing company is hired to stage a privately produced play they will do so in their next scheduled slot (and since they are being paid, this will bump any optioned pieces from other PCs, if any, for that month). Not sure what you mean by that? 2 NPC productions per company per year ? I don't really see how it would screw other playwrights? If they have a play accepted by any of the companies obviously this will 'bump' any NPC productions. I wasn't going to bring this up until the current rules were up and running (Helen would quite like to be - maybe joint - owner of a rival theatre at some point ) but the real bottleneck is the fact that there is only one theatre in Paris at the moment. How about allowing PCs to purchase a disused Jeu de Paume court (how most Paris theatres seem to have started, same purchase price and running costs - and maybe SPs? - as a Small Mansion), spend an extra 250 Livres converting it to a theatre, and then hire it out for private productions - staged either by one of the established companies outside their Theatre Royale months, or by a newly raised private company? The current rules for Private Theatre Companies mean that they will have to stage two productions per season in order to be viable - which is going to make one or more alternatives to the Theatre Royale absolutely necessary. I thought you were suggesting the Archduke's Men would fall out with the King's or Duc's. That would have made life difficult. I don't think we need the rivalry rule, but so long as it applies only to private companies, it is less of an issue. My concern with the established companies taking turns in the theatre (with NPC productions by default) was that PC playwrights have fewer opportunities to control the programme. For example, if I was to write two classic bawdy plays for the Archduke's Men, it would be up to seven months from completion of the second before it could be staged (assuming they accepted the play the month before their slot, and had to wait at least a month before starting rehearsals - starting the same month would be a problem for PC actors). Before the rule change, if no other PC had successfully sold a play, they would run them back to back. It is not a huge concern if I am the only playwright, but if two or three of us all have the same idea, there would be a long wait for PC plays whilst the NPC plays were staged. Of course, we could direct our talents to productions more likely to attract the other companies, but it is affecting our freedom in order to help another profession, so I have a selfish objection. Overall, though, I think the suggestion resolves what looked to be a real problem for actors, unless they teamed up with PC playwrights. Rules to encourage collaboration are good, in my opinion, but here the power seemed clearly to rest with the playwrights. I would be happy to see how it works out. The suggestion for multiple theatres could well answer my concerns; maybe not immediately, but once thespian PCs are sufficiently established to stage private productions.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 20, 2020 2:01:56 GMT
I've been looking at the evolution of theatre rules in EG!
In early PBM games, visiting the theatre appeared as a 'week-end' action giving PCs the chance to pick up a couple of extra SPs outside the usual weekly actions. This also makes a lot of sense where Liminal is concerned because, effectively, that is what will be happening already. Visiting the theatre costs money but gives no guarantee of getting any SPs in return - indeed, at the moment it's possible to _lose_ SPs by attending (see below). This means that there is no point in attending the theatre unless it can be combined with attending the first night party (weekly action), so visiting the theatre is effectively a 'quick action' already - no-one is going to go if they can't combine it with attending the party. It follows that those unable to attend the party (because their SL is much lower than the host etc.) now won't visit the the theatre at all, which also means that there is less chance of plays being successful.
Since visiting the theatre is already effectively a quick action, why don't we just formalise this and say that it can be ordered in conjunction with _any_ weekly action, not just attendance at the First Night Party ? (Naturally, extra attendances to the same production after the first will not gain any further SPs or affect the show's success in any way). This would also mean that it was pointless to have to pay more to attend the first night (which doesn't really happen anyway in RL) than any other night.
The 'Theatre Royal' rules, allowing PCs to write and stage plays in addition to visiting the theatre, appeared with the PBeM EG! games Arcadia, Parisian Chronicle and Orleans - all of which were broadly similar. These allowed PCs to produce plays (at a cost of 4 or 5 hundred crowns) and get SPs equal to the modified dice roll determining the success for the play minus 9. Writing the plays was incidental - it was possible to hire a professional playwright to do this for 50 crowns and +1 to the result rather than hire a professional producer for 50 livres and +1 to the result as is the case now. In those games, although it was possible to gain SPs for attending a 'Nothing Special' play or better, no SPs were lost for attending a flop. (Why should they be? The quality of a performance has nothing to do with the spectators after all...)
The pluses and minuses affecting the success of plays in Arcadia, Parisian Chronicle and Orleans were largely similar to those in the Liminal rules, but the results chart was much simpler:
8 or less Total flop 9-12 Nothing special 13-16 Successful 17 + Triumph
This meant that with an average die roll of 7 a production needed DMs of +6 to get a successful result and DMs of +10 (probably needing a Royal attendance) to secure a triumph.
Time of Honour (from which the current Liminal Rules are taken) introduced writing plays, operas and ballets (needing different skills) as a separate activity from producing plays; introduced the three acting companies to perform them; and introduced acting (includes opera singing and ballet dancing) as a profession. (NB It should be made clear that a PC acting in a performance counts towards the total number of characters attending the show).
The negative changes it introduced were making it possible to lose SPs from attending shows (Why? See above) and assuming that actors and playwrights in each production would get good results in both their fields, giving the following results chart:
Time of Honour (Current Liminal)
Modified Roll Outcome Sp for Audience Net ticket sales 8 or Less Total Flop -1 500 9 - 11 Nothing Special 0 800 12 - 14 Average 1 1000 15 - 18 Successful 2 1200 19 - 22 Triumph 3 1500 23 + Timeless Classic 4 2000
This means that with an average die roll of 7 a production needs DMs of +5 to get an average result, +8 to get a successful result and +12 to secure a Triumph. As mentioned, this assumes a +2 from writing/acting results - which is very rarely going to be the case. Actors (who may not get an acting result better than 'As Expected' anyway) can act in plays written by NPCs (which won't give any bonus). Writers (who may not get a writing result better than 'As Expected' anyway) can have plays staged by companies containing no PC actors (which won't give any acting bonus).
I'd suggest that the amended dice roll required to secure a triumph be reduced to 18+, which assumes a good writing result _or_ a good acting result (but not both). Similarly, the writer, producer and any actors should get SPs equal to the modified dice roll determining the success fo the play minus 10 (rather than minus 9).
Where Timeless Classics are concerned, even with a maximum die roll of 12 (a 1 in 36 chance) they still require DMs of 11+ which is a very tall order indeed. At the same time there is an outside chance that a play getting less than 'Very Well Done' at the writing stage could, thanks to statistical anomalies deciding that all the Royals decide to attend, achieve 'Timeless Classic' status. Logically, Timeless Classic should get both a 'Triumphant Success' at the writing stage and a 'Triumph' result at the performance stage - average scripts just won't cut it in the long run.
Finally, it seems strange that Net Ticket Sales increase by jumps rather than by smooth progression. To replace this I'd suggest ruling them to be 85 times the Modified Dice Roll. This would mean returns could be significantly less than 500 at the less successful end (424 on a modified roll of 5) whilst still remaining virtually the same at the top end (1955 on a modified roll of 23) with a smooth progression between the two. Net ticket sales are those after production costs (theatre hire and writer(s)'s fee) have been taken out. To keep things simple why not calculate gross ticket sales (at 100 times the Modified Dice Roll), and then deduct all expenses from them in the following order:
Theatre Hire - 100 Theatre Company Running Costs 300 Writer(s) Fee 70 Producer's Fee 50 Theatre Company Fee (King's Men 300, Duke's Men 200, Archduke's Men 100, Private Company Varies - only levied when company hired privately) Props Expenses Zero to 300
Anything left after the above was taken out would represent the production profit (if any) divided by the theatre company, writer/producer and prop buyer(s).
Taking all the above into account, the play results chart would look like this:
Suggested Liminal Results Chart
Modified Roll Outcome Sp for Audience Gross ticket sales 8 or Less Total Flop 0 Modified Roll x 100 9 - 10 Nothing Special 0 In Every Case 11 - 13 Average 1 14 - 17 Successful 2 18+ Triumph 3 19+ & Writing SCR1 Timeless Classic 4
NB I'm assuming 'Playwright' encompasses the writing of ballets and operas in addition to plays and that although any skill gains will only apply to the relevant skill, if a playwright creates a play and a ballet which both get 'triumphant success' at the writing stage, then both count as such regards the artists careers tables when performed? Also that the same goes for actors, whether they appear in plays, operas or ballets ?
|
|
|
Post by Yves Eau on Mar 20, 2020 10:37:20 GMT
I disagree with removing the requirement to have published, performed, etc. before being accepted as a professional in an artistic field.
If no acceptable work has ever been produced, why would an artist (used in the wide sense, to describe all these professions) have admirers? He certainly would not have royalties or fees. I don't think you should gain cash, status, and influence merely from your innate skill.
We have discussed already how ridiculously easy it is for an incompetent artist to produce a successful work. Change that, whilst retaining the need for a successful track record, and the suggested prerequisite for ability would be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by gaston on Mar 20, 2020 11:41:00 GMT
I agree that 4+ would be better. I only put forward 3+ because that's what it takes in medical or legal ability before it's possible to practice medicine or law. Of course, if (Admin Ability / 2) is added to produce 'effective skill' in these professions, as suggested above, this ceases to be a problem.
But is that what Neophyte's are actually doing? It's very rare for anyone to burst on the artistic scene self-taught and fully skilled. (They'll be the ones who who complete 2 or 3 successful/Triumphant works and then join the artistic ladder at Novice or Practitioner level). Most artists, however, serve some kind of apprenticeship before becoming prominent in their field - mixing paint / maintaining musical instruments / keeping quills sharp and ink stocked / handling wigs, costumes, make-up etc for established practitioners while they hone their own craft. Isn't this what Neophytes should be? Apprentices honing their craft while working to create the two successful works which will take them to Novice level ?
The monthly pay of Neophyte's isn't brilliant.
Neophyte Artist D6 x 5 Average 17.5 Neophyte Doc/Lawyer D6 x 2 Average 7
I've already suggested to Sam that these should be the other way around but, if we're saying that Neophytes are actually apprentices, let's give them a monthly stipend of (SL x3) instead - enough to cover basic upkeep and pay for a carouse each month. Hardly excessive and no need to explain it away as " gifts from admirers plus royalties from book/print/manuscript publishers and the fees generated from the performances of popular works etc." It's simply living expenses from the NPC they are apprenticed to...
|
|